The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-08-11
ASSESSOR SIBBE'S TRIAL.
High Officials Testify as to His
Predecessors Course.
according to the Witnesses, Similar Correc-
tions Of Assessments Have Long Been
Held TO Be Regular.

yesterday number of high legal officials
were on the stand in Judge CARRIERS court,
where the case of the Citizens Defense As
ISOLATION to GUST Assessor Siebe from Office
was resumed
superior Judge d. j. Murphy testified
that In 1879 he was District Attorney aud
as such was required to authorize changes
III assessments after equalization. He
'hought that II was at bis suggestion that
the power was afterward divided with the
Olty and County Attorney. Witness iden-
'lhed his signature to a number of such
authorizations.
Attorney Foote for the prosecution OBJ
Jeeted TO the introduction of the authorize
tions on the ground OF irrelevancy and be-
cause they were accompanied by an affidavit,
winch Was not the case in Siebe's appica-
tions
lhe court overruled the objections, stat
ing that 1t appeared that il was desired TO
esta0ilsh a continuity Of action on the part
OF Slebe. If the iatter's knowledge of irreg-
u.iarlty was subsequently shown the objec-
ton would stand
Judge Murphy stated he had no remen-
ofanee OF any individual cases except one
III when an assessment of property belong
ing 10 the Pacific Mail Steamship Company
hau Invited investigation.
ADMITTED IN BULK.
IL. j. Maloney testified that he had been
deputy Assessor since March. 1877, and
linen made way for ex-District Attorney T.
ID. Stonehil, who started in to identify
Other authorizations similar to those al
ready introduced, when Attorney FoOte in
terposed, and to save time agreed to admit
them in bulk. Some $40 authorizations were
therefore presented.
=, James Nealon, who was Assessor between
the years 1890. testified to the practice of
inc Office. IL any irregularty was brought
10 MS notice after equalization he would ap-
ply 10 the proper authorities for permission
10 correct II there was large discrel ancy
between the assessment and the reduced as
sssSment desired witness would investigate
tue matter personally. He did not remem-
Der ever making a reduction of $40, 600
assessment without close inquiry.
- A legal skirmish was started by Attorney
toote asking the witness If he ever remen-
oered making an addition TO the as
sessment roll after II had been passed upOn
by the Board Of Equalization
attorney Alderman objected and his as
soclato counsel. W. II. l.. Barnes claimed
u was merely desired TO prove that it was
the general practice of the Assessors of
nee 10 consider that any necessary changes
either Tor or against the taxpayer could be
made alter the equalization.
Inc court ruled against the question, as
it was only required TO show the practice Of
the Assessor, not his opinion as to the law.
ADDITIONS AS WELL AS REDUCTIONS.
Attorney Alderman remarked signif-
cantiy that the Citizens Defense AssOcia-
ton had complained of Siebe's striking
$4,000 off the roll. but nothing was said
of the $500 added. At the same tims coun-
sci gave an indication that he intended TO
show that Siebe was eOgniZant of the prac-
tee OF making these corrections, as he had
the same staff of assistants in his office.
y; u. sullivan, ex-District Attorney, in
1854 had authorized some $50 correc.
lions, but made no personal investigations.
Foote said the prosecution would admit
that since 1879 the authorizations had been
Issued in an almost perfunctGry manner
but he denied the similarity OF the corree-
tons complained OF to those now intro
duced.
ID. J. Maloney was recalled and testified
that as chief deputy In the Assessors office
since 1877 he made various corrections as
required. The office was divided into four
departments-the real property, personal
property, mortgage and polltax depart
ments.
TALE OF REDUCTION.
Witness made an interesting statement
regarding how the first reduction in the
complaint was made The California Safe
Deposit and Trust Company was assessed
at $4,000 In Neal0n's time it was as
sessed at $4,000. Consequently when
j. NJ. Shotwell, the principal director,
examined the roll he came to witness ana
complained of the increase. The showing
he made of poor business, competition, etc.
seemed reasonable to the Assessor and
board. and the assessment was reduced to
remedy an Injustice
In the correction of the assessments
against II. ). and c. II. Croker it was
ELECTED that they were assessed as resi-
dents Of the Palace Hotel, ii being the Gus
tom TO rate guests there al $1,000 each on an
arbitrary assessment Afterward il was
found that the Croekers did not reside
there, aud as they were assessed under q
different heading there would be a double
assessment against them. One was there
fore Cancelled. as shown in the complaint.
No personal demand was deemed necessary
IN these corrections.
After recess Maloney, in cross-examtna-
lion by Attorney tooie, denied that District
Attorney John Ii. burst warned him
against the practice of obtaining the au-
thorlzatons In question. Did not know of
continual friction between the Offices on
that point
FooTE WILL NOT YIELD.
Judge CARRIER tried to shorten up things
by inducing counsel to agree that changes
were made in good faith by Siebe The
prosecuting attorneys, however. preferred
10 Yentllate the matter, suggesting that it
might be proved that authorizations had
been obtained against the advice of Dis
trlct Attorney.
City and County Attorney burst was next
examined, and admitted that he had had
doubts about the legality OF the authorize
ton, as shown by his letter TO the Grand
jury at the time. These had been resolved
by investigation. He had made o attempt
to verify the truth of the corrections desired.
In cases OF invalid assessments, he would
authorize the changes.
II. Hersey, the chief deputy in the Asses
sors Office since 1891, testified to the methods
there showing them to be practically the
same as those obtaining in the offices of
Siebe's predecessors.
The ease was continued until this morn
ing at 10 O'Clock for argument