The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-10-20

OF value 90 himself tr0m the gov
/ ernmn"t Cannot sit on "a raN APP
peal 10 ard.
A decision Of the Supreme Court
in Banco, by Mr.. Justice Dole, was
filed o-day in the case: "rhe Hutch
inson Sugar Plantation Company, a
Corporation, VS.. The Hawaiian Gov
eminent andO +. Shipman, deputy
tax assessor. Bill in equity to vacate
decision of Tax Appeal Board. The
opinion of the Court is as follows:
This case comes before us upon
the following stipulation: 1t is agreed
that this cause shall be heard by the
Supreme Court in Banco in the first
instance. 1t is agreed that the ques-
ton submitted to the decision of the
Supreme Court shall be whether or
not on the facts presented by the re-
cord, the proceedings of the tax APP
peal court in this matter were in
validated by said G. Meinecke's sit
ting and acting as member. And
that if so invalidated the prayer of
the petitioner shall be granted.
The circumstances of the case are
these: In 1890 the plaintiff made its
returns to the assessor of its pro-
perty situate in Kau on the island of
Hawaii, in the amount of SAL ,909
SO. The assessor raised the valua-
ton to $66l, 9l8. 80, from which as
sessment the plaintiff appealed to the
tax appeal court, of which one G.
Meinecke was member. The plain
tiff protested against the said &.
Meinecke sitting as member of the
said court at the hearing of the said
appeal on the ground that he was
not disinterested, being employed by
the Hawaiian Government as post
master under a salary, and was
therefore disqualified, and also on the
ground that he was hostile TO and
prejudiced against the plaintiff and
was engaged in litigation with it, and
was thereby biased.
The tax appeal court, notwith-
standing the plaintiffs protest, heard
the case and rendered decision
therein, fixing the value of the plain
tifl's property for taxation purposes
at $6l3,S6l and costs at $202, upon
which valuation the plaintiff paid
taxes together with the costs under
protest.
The law provides that the several
tax appeal courts shall be composed
of circuit or police Judge, "to-
gether with two disinterested persons,
to be appointed by the Minister of
Finance"
Was G. Meinecke disqualified from
sitting as a member of such a court
by reason of his office of postmaster
or of litigation with the plaintiff?
The evidence shows hostile language
against the plaintiff on the part OF
Meinecke, but does not definitely fix
the time when it was uttered, except
that it was before the sitting of the
tax appeal court. 1t may have been
so long before as to be without i'm
portance TO the issue raised. In re-
gard to the connection of Mr.. Mem
ecke with the Hawaiian Government,
one of the defendants, as postmaster,
we think that that is relation which
tends to undermine the impartiality
of one subject to it. The position,
indeed, was probably not an import
ant one and the salary may have been
small but it may have been of value to
Meinecke; his business as a store
keeper would naturally have made
the establishment of the district post
office in his store matter of import
ance to him from the number of per-
sons who would be thereby constant
ly drawn TO the building.
We are therefore of the opinion
that e. Meinecke was not disinter-
ested person in the meaning of the
statute, and was therefore disquali-
fled from acting as member of the
tax appeal court in question, and
that the said action of the said court
was illegal and must be set aside.
The excess of taxes paid by the
plaintiff over those due on the re-
turns made by it, together with the
costs of the appeal and interest,
must be returned to the plaintiff by
the defendants. Decree accordingly.
Dated Honolulu, October 20, 1891.
f. M. Hatch and G. l.. Carter for
plaintiff A. p. Peterson and At
torney-General Whiting for defend
ants.
u IY-Dr