The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1892-05-25

A case of unusual interest to the tax paying |
public was disposed of in our Common Pleas
Court last week, it being the case of Willis
Strickland, by administrator, VS. the Treasurer
of Portage County.
On the a4th day of July, 1890, Mr.. Strickland,
who was then living, filed his petition iu Court
against Marvin Collins Treasurer, praying the
Court to perpetually enjoin the Treasurer from
the collection of certain taxes against him. Mr..
| Strickland set out in his petition that he had
duly returned to the Assessor and had enlisted
for taxation all of the property of which he was
possessed and for which he supposed he was
legally taxable for the years 1887, 1888, 1880,
and 1890, and that he had duly paid the tax as
sessed thereon for these years, except for the
year 1890, which was not then due.
The circumstances which led to the COM
mencement of this suit were that some time in
1886 Mr.. Strickland loaned to VIM. Dietz, of
Widham, $45I5, and instead of taking mort
gage to secure said loan and the interest thereon,
as is usual, he took from Dietz warranty deed
of his farm of 1851 acres, and entered into a
contract with him to reconvey the farm to him
provided he should repay the amount loaned
with the interest thereon, within a time agreed
upon between them.
Auditor S. R. Freeman, leaIn ming of the facts
in the case, cited Strickland to appear at his
office and to show cause why the amount sc
loaned should not be added to the amount re-
turned returned for taxation by him for eacf
year since the loan was made. The Auditor
: informed Mr.. Strickland that the deed he hac
TNsz o(0rf
: gage, in law, and that the sum loaned, with thu
90 per cent penalty to be added, was clearl!
: liable to taxation.
p Strickland admitted in substance the fact
concerning the loan, but denied his liability 70
# taxation upon the amount. In his petition
j however, he says that He is now informe'
r and believes that through misunderstanding
of the law of the subject, there was one item c
$1,000 which was subject to taxation, and whicl
'' the plaintiff should have enlisted in his said as
8 sessment for each of said years, and he plead
u that he has offered to pay the tax and penalt
- and tax on that amount for the year 1890. Thi
4 900 represents the value which Stricklan
put upon the Dietz farm, but which he ha
omitted to list. The Auditor refused to acceT
u this as a compromise, but insisted upon placin
and did place the full amount of the loan, vi
r S4515. 90. with the 50 per cent penalty, again
Il. Strickland for the year 1887, and the amount
m $4,000 and penalty for the year 1888 and S3,5c
is and penalty for the years 1889 and 1890, IL
IN reduction being deemed equitable by the Al
k ditor by reason of the fact that in consequent
of of the depreciation Of the value of the farr
vn the value of Strickland's loan had depreciatt
" to the extent of the reduction made.
at The Auditor did not charge Mr.. Stricklal
ng with any bad faith in the matter, nor with al
ed intentional evasion OF the tax. Auditor Ere
ch mans position was that by law Mr.. Stricklal
m, was held for the payment OF this tax. Stric
in land, through his counsel, believed otherwise.
g's Judge Robinson dissolved the temporary
his junction allowed in the case, and held that t
inc estate of Mr.. Strickland must pay the tax
IT'S, charged against him in The hands of the Ire
nd urer.
ce, The decision completely vindicates Audi
We. Freeman in the diligence exercised by him,
,ull ring his term of office, in requiring all pers
of to share their burden of taxation under the Ia
of the State.