The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1892-02-17

b. the auditor. It is not necessary now
to consider whether in these cases it IS
necessary for the boards, or either of them,
to pass on the matter of valuation. The
only other state Of facts on which the
anditor can act when shown to exist by
this investigation is where a party has
committed "a merely unilltert:oi:al mis-
! take" In which case tie auditor may
: add such amount as ma be just, and
charge simple taxes only against the
party.
It is not coutended that this case comes
within either Of the first three classes
above stated, and no so per cent penalty
has been added as should have been done
if this case came within either Of these
classes.
Now the word ",nistake', has tcclni-
cal meaning. 1t consists of unconscious
ness, ignorance or forgetfulness, or 1t
may be belief Of the existence Of some
fact past or present which did not or does
not now exist, and on which the party
acted 'Where an act is done intention
ally and with knowledge of doing, the
act act can not be treated as mistake"
Pomp. Eq., Section S54. Errors of judg-
ment cannot be called mistakes. One of
the purposes for which these boards have
been constituted by our tax laws is to cor
rect these errors of Judgment on the part
of the taxpayers. The valuation in this
case was sworn to and passed by one
board without objection, and distinctly
approved by the other. 1t is hard to see
how it can be called merely "uninten-
| tional mistake" If, howeve-, this is one
of the cases within the purview of these
sections-2Se and 242-it is not claimed
| and it nowhere appears that the auditor
acquired jurisdiction over this special case
by giving to the bank the notice and i'll
stituting the investigation prescribed in
these sections. Until this notice was given
the auditor had no more jurisdiction in
this case than the Court of Common
Pleas would have before the service of
summons in an action for relief, or the
Court of General Sessions to try, convict
and punish man for criminal offense
before he has been arrested on a warrant
so as to bring him within the jurisdiction
of the court.
Even if there had been a notice as re-
CURED it should appear that all the pro-
ceedings were regularly had, which are
prescribed in the sections, including the
very important matter of the examination |
of that party and such witnesses as may |
be called under oath, and that the auditor |
did not act merely on what he considered |
reliable information.
With these views we conclude that the
auditor had no jurisdiction to change the
valuation Of this property from $3.50, 900
to $23o,ooo, as that the entry stood on
this duplicate and though corrected, or
that now stands On the treasrrer's dupli- |
cate, with no more authority Of law than
if it had been placed there by himself in
advertently or by some clerk or other per-
son against his consent or without his |
knowledge.
The views of this court as to the pro-
priety of issuing writ of mandanus i'll
cases like this have been given III the case
against the auditor, Wallace c. Cromer,
heard with this case, ard it is not neces-
sary here to repeat them.
The order Of Judge Hudson and the
writ of mandamus issued under it COM
manded the auditor to correct the..dupli-
Gates and this includes the duplicate now
in the hands Of the treasurer.
It will be time enough to consider the
question of the treasurer's liability when
ever any attempt is made to hold him re-
sponsible for not collecting a tax which
one appeared on the duplicate in his
hand, and which this court holds to have
been placed there without warrant oflaw.
1t is therefore ordered and adjudged that
a peremptory writ of nandamus do issue
from this court commanding Calhoun F.
Boyd, County Treasurer OF Newberry
County, to correct the tax duplicate i'll
his hands for the fiscal year November I,
1890, so as to enter the valuation Of the
personal property Of the petitioner at
SI5o, 900, and to enter the tax payable on
the same for said fiscal year at S2,o25, so
as to correspond with the tax duplicate
now held by the said county auditor,
Wallace c. Cromer or that he will per
nit the said auditor to make such correc-
tions, which corrections when so made
by the auditor III obedience to the writ
heretofore issued in the above stated case
against the said auditor shall be held to
be compliance with the writ hereby
ordered.
N THE AUDITORS CASE.
The following is a complete abstract Of
the decision in the case Of the auditor,
which is perhaps Of more inlportancc:
Both cases which is the case Of the au-
ditor, refer to the entries on the tax dupli-
Gates Of Newberry County vs.. the National
Bank Of Newberry, S. G., for the fiscal
year commencing November I, 1890, i'll
volving, therefore, the same matters.
Most of the questions raised are the same
in both cases, but with difference enough
to make it better to have separate opin-
ion and Judgment Of the court in each
case The facts alleged il the petitioner
for writ of mandanus ii he case are
admitted to be true by the nature Of the
return Of the respondent, Wallace c.
Cromer, the auditor, in which no new
material answer is set up as an answer OF
defence to the case made b. the petition"