The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-06-17
IBID C. . N'CULLY J., BIcKERToN, j.,
DOLE. J., ABSENT.

DOLE, J., ABSENT
The Sur-srne Court has jurisdiction TO hear
czses relating 70 the assessment ana
collection Of Taxes notwithstanding
ne provision OF q Tax Appeal Court
r-u-n which there j. no appeal, when
fre- i appears that there are involved
Questions touching the constitution
zirT OF construction OF the statute.
IL existence Of q clause in q lease provld
7-lr -hsr the lease shall not be assigned
~ me lesee without the previous con-
seu- OF The lessor under penalty OF
forfeiture OF the lease, does not exempt
such iezsehOld premises from the tax
n winch lezsehOlds are liable.
AZ winch was based on an estimate OF
me income derivable through the re-
mzinder Of the term OF the lease, HELD
70 b. virtually al income tax, and not
leEzL
oEDIoS OF TIKI COURT BY MCULLY, J..
The cese comes upon a bill of ex-
,csulons from d Judgment rendered
fT Chef Justice Judd, who tried the
csse, & Jury being waived. The ex-
csu1On Il II general terms to the
decision and Judgment and says that
the Court erred N giving judgment
Eo- the plaintiff, and says that said
decision Is contrary to law and the
=rldence given. and refers TO and
makes & Darf Of the bill the evidence
taken and exhibits flied. What is
rsesssErr from these will be stated
Il TIE opinion The defendant is
TIE assessor and tax collector of the
plaintiffs district. The plaintiff paid
mn under protest, the sum Of 81 300,
70 recover which he brings this &C
ton
II the general exception conten-
fa0n i made that the Court has not
jurisdiction herein, because the law
las provided another court, the
oour1 Of tax appeals, having exclu-
slEe and final jurisdiction. This
POM was not presented as plea IN
hEr- requiring to be decided as pre-
llulnzrr. hence the whole case was
heard without a decision on this
bad
The Statute as last amended is
Sec 40 Of Oh IS of the Laws of 1888,
winch i ss follows:
Any person whose name may ap-
1,szr Oh such tax list, and who shall
have made ms returns to the Asses
s0r g. hsreinbefore provided, and, if
entitled TO exemption, shall have
claimed such exemption, and who
may deem himself aggrieved by any
excess made by the assessor in the
valuation Of the property as returned,
or IN the amount and character
thereof OF whereby the amount pay
abe by such person Is increased be-
T01d the amount which would be
payable by him according 10 such
return OF whose claim for exemption
sal not have been allowed, may
appeal from such assessment on
lodging with the tax assessor on or
before the fifteenth day of Novem
Bsr- Z notice thereof in writing, stat
mg the grounds of his objection to
1be assessment. or to any part there
Of and depositing Herewith the
cosls o. such appeal"
The plaintiff has claimed and
claims that be Is entitled to an Sex
snpaOn" which has not been al
lowed and that the amount and
chEacler" Of ms assessment are
erroneous II law. The court of tax
EElpssl has decided against his
CLAIMS affirming the assessment of
TIE assessor He has paid the judg-
u1euf under protest, and now in this
O0uT1 brings ms action to recover
1hs amount Is he barred?
II Nldsmsnn vs.. the Minister of
FlDEnoe- 3 Hsw. 7S9. the Court says
1hs Legislature has constituted a
1rI5z1sl, which tribunal is not the
Minister u Finance. therefore the
Minister l. not authorized to abate
tLes- In Bishop VS. Judd, assessor,
Al Hsw 80, the Court quote the
Eb0ve case q authority for the pro
EsosIlCn that q special remedy which
4 exclusive by appeal to the tax APP
Pea board has been provided for
Esz-les who have been wrongly as
sesssd- In the first of the above
rzsss the court could not give
me plaintiff relief although in a
LIE dc5CScLltul MAS
claimed 70 be clearly erroneous, be-
cause be had made no return and
therefore was bound by the action Of
assessor, but u the second the Court
says that the plaintiffs claimed that
tbe law was unconstitutional ga
MATER which could not be raised be-
fure the Tax Board nor be brought
from the Board to this Court. no ap-
pea therefore being provided" In
Smith Minister of Finance VS..
kockeuEnn 5 Haw- 800, the Court
5onsideued whether property was
entitled 70 exemption which was
had by church for its use and
hsnsSL and N Bishop VS.. Gulick
Tx Collector It'll Haw. 627 whether
property held IN trust for the sup
pm Of { school was exempt. In the
Hszku Sugar Co vs. Birch Tax Col
lsctor HsE 275 the Court consid-
cred Ehe1her a valuable water ditch |
EEs exempt from taxation as against |