The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-06-02
STORMING TEE LEVY.
Another Huge Batch of
Claims for Reduction of
Tax Assessments.
MILLING COMPANY C0RNERED.
Gilbert Collins Doubts if Newark
Avenue Values Have Increased
Since 1885.
MILLING COMPANY CORNERED.

Since 1885.
The Commissioners Of Appeals in Cases
of Taxation met yesterday afternoon at
the City Hall. No judgments were rend-
cred and none will be until Friday.
Ex-Mayor Collins early in the meeting
announced that he appeared for Hoos S
Shultz. He asked the Commissioners to
reopen the Judgment given by them on
May 25, reduc Ing the valuation of the
property at Nos. II and 50 Newark ave-
nue. S., ,0O0 President Warner enquired
of Corporation Counsel w. D. Edwards,
who was present, if the Commissioners
had legal right to reopen case that
had been adjudged by them, and counsel
replied that they had. There was no
legal objection to such course, but Mr..
Edwards said the delay of repeated ap-
peals could be overcome by adopting
rule not to reopen such cases.
Ex-Mayor Collins agreed with Mr.. Ed
wards as to the law. and entreated the
Commissioners to do justice to Hoos &
Shultz. Their property. he said was pur-
chased by them in 1885 for $4,000. 1t
runs through and fronts on Gregory
street. This" said the ex-Mayor, ''was
assessed in 1890 for $4,000. In 1891 the
Tax Commissioners assessed the Gregory
street front $500, which is paid, and the
Newark avenue front was assessed for
$40, ,000 or $14, 900 more than the entire
property cost, including the Gregory
street frontage. Your Board took into
consideration this excessive assessment,
Il n ,otf afI OF
makes the whole property assessed for
$37. 500 or So, 500 more than the purchase
price in 1885. When the property was
bought 1t was not obtained as bargain.
But small sum was paid down and
heavy mortgage was left on it for the firm
TO pay off. There ia no basement or cellar
under the building. and the building it
self is old and but a SHE'LL 1t is not worth
more than 81, 500 and is only used as
store house.
'The building has deprecated consid-
erably in value since purchased bv Hoos
& Shultz and l insist thnt In all fairness
further reduction should be made"
do you mean to say. MIR. Collins, that
property has not increased in value on
Newark avenue since 1885, below the rail.
road crossing?" Commissioner Fraser
asked
Land may have increased slightly
since 1885. but am not prepared to ad
nit it: am inclined rather to doubt the
fact" replied Mr. Collins
you do not believe" inquired Presi-
dent Warner, "that land valuations have
increased more than the building hos de-
preciated."
II do not" was the emphatic answer of
the lawyer.
The President said that the Commis-
sioners would take the papers and give
the argument of the counsel due consid-
GRAFTON.
or
Peter Robert of No. 6 West Hamilton
place complained that his property at that
number and at Nos. 343 343X and 3S2
Eighth street had been assessed at an ex-
cessive valuation, and asked the Board to
make inquiry.
Christopher Handel, of No. 214 Sixth
street, complained that he owned two
frame buildings at Nos. ZIG and 7lS Grand
street The buildings joined each other.
No. TIC was a double fiat, twenty-five feet
front, and No. us was a single flat, fifteen
feet front. In other respects the buildings
were alike and constructed of the same
material. The double fiat paid monthly
rental of sos, and the single fiat rented for
third less. The double flat and the
single fiat were each assessed alike for
So, 500. He thought the valuation on the
double flat was fair one, but the equal
valuation on the single fiat was unjust.
He asked the Commissioners to examine
his property and give him proper reduc-
tion for the single fat house.
James +. Cough of No. 1873 Fourth
street mplained that the valuation on
his property at that number was excess
sive, and also the property No. 200 Mont
gomery street. John keating made a
similar plea for his home at No. 242 Sixth
street. Julia Pierson asked the Board to
take eff 500 personal tax at No. 108 Erie
street, because she did not live there and
had no personal property at that address.
n nc nj NJ n ba
that he had been assessed $500 at No. 56S
Jersey avenue. and said that he was a
nonresident. and had no personal prop
erty at that number.
Charles c. Van Anglen, agent for T. G.
Brown, who is ILL., Informed the Board
that the property at No. so Newark ave-
nue. was assessed for 1928 coo. at least a. 600
more than 1t should be. IL was assessed
for S24. 900 in 1890, when by mistake a
piece of property adjoining which did not
belong to Mr.. Brown, was included in the
assessment for that year. He thought that
if Mr.. Browns property and some one
else's property jointly were only valued
at S24. 600 In $780, that $24, 900 ought to be
a great enough value Tor Mr.. Browns
property alone In 1891
QUITE SETBACK.
The Jersey City Milling Company OF
No. 542 Henderson street. complained
that it had been assessed for $50, 600 of per.
sonal property, at least 5000 more than
it should be.
Tax Commissioner German produced
statement made to the tax Board by the
Company before the assessment was
made that showed by its own valuation it
had $4,000 personal property.
w. X. Watson. who represented the
Company said that was true Mt the time,
but his personal property was of perish
able nature, and had deprecated $1,000 in
value.
The Board adjourned to meet Friday.
Ia 81 IA.AI