The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-08-23

=. -. Farnsworth objected m CIuta,s
valuation of S20, 800 on three pieces ofncon'
erty owned by him, as being awav abova
last years valuation and consider bI', -,
excess OF its actual value.
sam Rleben considered Clute,s valuation
OF slO,OOO on his lot outrageously high and
he registered vigorous kick against the
assessment. V"o
h Borquist wanted to know whv Cgpta
naa valued his lot in block Al. plat r ar
o osNNn, Whlcn was away ahead-of last years
assessment. NO one answered the oussrior
). L. Moss objected to the val4ation .;
Sl,oOO ON his improvements. which were nor
worth to exceed $500. NV
Orson Pettlt protested against the over-
valuation OF $4,000 on the stocK NJ N,
coop Furniture company. The countvis
SaIpatlon was only $500, and that was
high enough. ']S " aS
Mr. Pettit also objected TO the ovsrvolr,
alton of 81, 300 on his protertv in tbo
Ninth ward. The county valuation 80
only IS, go. wa
LUCINDA Pettit protested against the val
uallon OF So, 100 on her lot near the ITtab &
Nevada depot. The county valuation o.,
Inc same was but $4,000, and that was ali
the property was worth
a clerical error in the tax no,ica ~ u
Do Mott Was corrected. Mr. De Mott also
OOIected 10 the valuation of sl1 4OO on his
lot, as being 81, 800 too high.
MIS-. Ann Z. Is. Haslam protested against
une valuation Oh so, 900 on her lot This was
aoouC Tour times as high rs last wear and
th9rG was no Justification for the lump.
D. L. crane was in the same predica-
ment. His lot Was valued at 50 PSI Which
was Just four times as large as Iast year
D. Z. Irvine claimed that tbere Iyos -,
error IN MS assessment, and he asked tbot
it be corrected N'A0U 'uaS
w. u. Amos protested against the vaIr-
aUlon vi $500 III MS lots in Ontario addi-
uol; The county valuation was onIv
d. I. Parsons and others thought CIuta,s
valuation OF $500 foot on their nrc.nar,S,
IN commercial street was excessive and
asked Tor reduction 10 $4,000
Ellen l.. l.. Horne considered C1utA,s
Vaiuaton OF 4, 100 on her property on Third
w est street, and invited MIR. Clute to
plank up the cash if he wanted the nIacs
at it. IuulP
Mrs. l.. ID. Adler asked 10 be- reliaved
IRON the assessment on a MORTGAGE for
"a, lUU, which was cancelled last Apr1I
george Whitaker objected to the voIro
ton OF S3o, oOO ON his property. He con
sldered 1T worth ABOUT IA 600. and Ias,
year CIute said he would send a man down
VIM woulu give nun S5O, 900 for it. He had
oeen looking for that customer ever since
buFhe never materalized. Mr.. CInte hod
nothing to say. ""N
Z. y. Olson asked that Clute's valuation
OF s9OO be reduced TO 500, which was its
face value. ~
d. b. Wicks asked a reduction in tbs
valuation OF S4S, 800 on soma OF his prop.
erty. p-'P
H, b. Scott registered kick against thu
valuation OF S5S, zoo on his pronertJ-
in block 3d. plat f, on the Sronnd
that II was very excessive Mr.. Scott also
objected to the valuation OF Slot. 600 on hin
lot at the corner of Third South and Main
street. -A"''-
Z. :. Cotton thought the valuation ~
Sl,o'5 on his property was put sS75 too
nigh. wv
Galloway, Hook & Co. objected to the
valuation or S, OOO for their stock. as heinz
5000 too high.
Mrs. w. Missing objected to CIute,s val
uation OF u, $50 on her property, which wa,
not worth more than $500
Otto johnson thought the valuation nj
81, 80 on his property was too high.
Snadrlck Bowers considered the yaJua
ton OF s., $50 on his lot excessive.
A. j: Swenson thought the valuation OF
$1,000 in his lot was too hign.
Catherine Walters objected to CInteJs
vaiutlon OF 81, 100 on her property as ex-
cessive.
w. II. Bywater protested against bis
property being assessed twice as high as il
was last year. He thought a reduction
rather than an increase was in order.
Inc board then adjourned until Monday
evening at 80.