The Hawaiian gazette., 1891-01-13

OPINION OF THE COURT BY M'CULLY, J
This case comes from the Angus
Term, 1890, of the Circuit Court o
the Fourth Judicial Circuit, upor
the following bill OF exceptions:
1) That the declaration anc
proofs show no cause of &C
ton against the defendant;
a. That the basis of valuation or
which the assessment of said
Tax Assessor was made is
shown by the proofs to be in
correct, being not the present
value Of the land in question
as indicated by its rental, but
the prospective and possible
value;
g. That Mrs. V. Knudsen should
have been joined as defend
ant
The evidence taken by the local
Circuit Judge in Chambers and ex-
hibits are to be considered with the
bill.
Suit was brought in the District
Justices Court by the plaintiff, the
Tax Collector for the District of
Koloa, for the recovery of the sum
of three hundred and fifty dollars,
together with the statute charge on
delinquent taxes of ten per cent,
which tax had been assessed upon
land known as the Ahupuaa of Koloa,
being the property of the wife of de-
PENDANT The point is made by the
first exception that the defendant
was not personally liable, and in the
third that if he were his wife should
also have been joined. The exhibits,
however, clearly show that the de-
PENDANT has undertaken to represent
his wife in the return of this prop
erty in the manner contemplated by
Sections q and % of the general
tax act, as they stand therein and as
they were amended by Chap. 70 and
so of the acts of 1888, to make him
chargeable with the tax payable in
respect thereof in the same manner
as if such property were his own"
and it is clear that the statute does
not contemplate that the principal
or cestui que trust shall be Joined in
suit with the agent, guardian or
trustee. The defendant in his letter
of May 18th to Mr.. Farley, the Tax
Assessor, says of this property, +" 1
own an interest in Koloa," to-wit, the
reversion of the leases. This defend
ant has not contested his liability in
respect to another parcel of property
in the same circumstances, on which
he has paid the tax.
The gravamen of this controversy,
it is plain from the defendants state
ments and correspondence on file, is
that property purchased in 1868 for
81, 900 under leases having several
years yet to run at $3.50 per year, is
now assessed at valuation of $35,-
600 and taxed $3.50. On this is found
ed the second exception.
The general tax law enacted in
1882, provided, Sec. 25, that in res
pect of real estate held in any ten
ancy exceeding yearly tenancy, the
interest of the owner of such real
estate shall be estimated at a sum
equal to eight years rent received
from such real estate" G. L. D., 121.
If this provision were now existent
the assessment at $4,000 would
clearly be incorrect, in violation of
statute rule, and it would be within
the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court to set it aside, notwithstand-
ing any action of the board of tax
appeals confirming it. But by Act
of 1856, Sec. 6, the above provision
was repealed, leaving the rule OF
valuation without respect to ten
ancy, every person shall be liable
to taxation in respect of the full cash
value of his interest in such prop
erty" Thus the rule of certainty rs
to the appraisement of property
under lease was repealed. 1t cannot
be said that this was unreasonable
legislation estates may be rented at
too high rent, as many leases taken
by Cinnamon show, or at too low a
rent, as times change. 1t is conceiv-
able that property might be put
under the protection of low rentals,
by connivance. And Section s of !
this Act amended Sec. Is of the |
original Act to read, " the full cash |
value of the interest of any person
in real or personal property shall be
at a sum which such inter
est might reasonably be expected to
bring at sale by public auction for
cash." The Assessor has only these
guides to his judgment in fixing
values, and upon his judgment
values depend, subject only TO the
Judgment of three other men consti-
tuting the Tax Appeal Board.
The cases in which the Supreme
Court can vacate an assessment are