Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-02-25
THE INJUNCTION ARGUMENT
The Chancellor Sitting in the
v. S. Court Chamber.
VERY LENGTHY ADDRESSES
Court Room Crowded During
the Entire Day.
Mr.. Lore and Mr.. bradford Have Finished
--Aii of the Speakers Listened TO with
the Closest Attention During the
Lengthy Argument.

'ourt at 3 o'clock Tuesday afternoon.
The same intense interest was BETRAYED
py the public, the court room being
crowded during the whole of tho after
moon to tho time of adjournment, at
$50 o'clock.
During the whole of that time the
chancellor maintained the closest watch.
fitness of the argument, frequently
dropping a pointed question to the
speaker.
Mr.. Bradford continued argument for
the defendants. He said in effect.
Before taking up the act of 1873 and
the amendment of 'S1 he desired to add
some remarks in regard to the power
OF the Levy Court under the old law to
correct the lists. There is a clause
which entities the Levy Court to the
assistance of the assessor during the time
of revision.
In reply to the chancellor's query
Mr.. Bradford said that he includes in
the term correction that the Levy Court
has the right to strike off names-he did
not refer to adding names.
don't know, he continued, whether
the learned counsel of other side CON
slider under the power to correct that u
name might be changed Suppose for
the name, Thomas Smith, the court
found the name John Smith. don't
suppose counsel on other side would
contend that court could not strike of
Thomas and substitute John. This is
done in order that there may be tax
laid and collected. The chancellor
Of their own motion
"Yes, sir, their own notion"
AT the February meeting they may
"examine, correct, and add to-" AT the
March sitting they may also, at theil
own option. This power is expressly
given them in the old law.
The purpose of this correction is tc
indicate q taxable, John Smith, for in
stance, living person.
But is not Thomas name? A ficti
tious name is name. Just as Levy
Court strikes off Thomas and substitute.
John, they drop name from the list. Il
does not represent human being.
The hancellor-"Ofthcir own motion
would they have the right of substitut.
ing Thomas Brown for Thomas Smith p
Unquestionably."
The chancellor-"How would they
get the facts 2"
MI DidulOIu- by doCcfldl Hulbu
from the assessor"
Where, your honor, is the distinction
in striking off fictitious names and drop
ping the name Thomas. Just to the ex
tent that the two names do not represen
living person chargeable with tas
would the Levy Court have the right t,
strike from the list.
submit that when the Levy Court il
the case supposed substitutes the nam
John ii drops name in SO far as tn
name is fictitious.
The chancellor-"By the same rul
| they would be entitled to substitute tn
name John Jones for Thomas Smith /!
ayes"
Mr.. Bradford-In this instance
would be done to place the taxable
The striking Off is in order to gain
n sound assessment list. submit Their
is no difference in fact in the case whicl
represent and in fictitious name.
submit that up to date of passage O
the act of '73 the purpose of assessment
legislation was to produce an homes
assessment list. And there could be n
question of the Levy Courts right an
power to strike from the list illegal o
fictitious names.
Now comes the act of 1878. BY IL
provisions it was made unlawful b
Levy Court to drop the name of an
person, not any name, but the name Q
Q person. Now contend and shall urg
this case is 10 be considered on the &C
of '73 amended by that of 'S1. Yet
claim, despite the amendment, Lev
Court would have the power to strik
off fictitious names. / think can prov
Il after 1878 and prior to 1881.
The act Of 1878 in section provide
that 1t shall be unlawful for Levy Coui
10 take off the name of any perso
appearing thereon.
Now submit that a fictitious name
not the name of a person. The assesst
was not to remove from his list tn
name of any person.
yet in view of the prohibition again
striking names of persons from the list "
it was logical that in regard TO tine cler
of peace's duties that he should strike o
the list because otherwise the cler
would have to retain names.
But the wording of the law says
the clerk neglects to record the nam
the name on the duplicate as returne
by the assessor he would be liable in
fine of $40 to be paid to the person.
The act of 1878 having stood for eigl
years, in 1881 the Legislature passed Il
amendatory act. My friend, Mr.. Lor
said the legislature amended simply b
inserting the word illegally" 1t struc
out of the act of '73 large portion
section and substituted the word
"Name legally appearing thereon"
1t was enacted that names Of no pc
sons legally appearing on the lis
should be struck from the lists. Und
the act of '73 the clerk of the pea
would have to put in the tax duplica
the names returned by the assessor. b
the amendment of '81 gave the Ley
Court the right to strike from the lis
names not legally on the list. This W
modification of the rule requiring II
clerk to put on the duplicate list all h
names, including the illegal nam(
Therefore, the General Assembly of g
in the use Of the word legally"
reasonable implication, repealed the la
commanding the clerk OF the peace
record the names on the duplicate
originally returned by the assessors.
| submit that when the Levy Cou
,as revised these lists it does not lie
the mouth
The chancellor-"If the court to-
off 100 names and substituted 100 othel
is the clerk in your opinion required
record that new 100 on the duplica
lists ?"
Mr.. ENTHUSIASTICALLY"
MIR. Bradford--I don't assume tn
because the Levy Court does a certa
thing it is right. But | insist in 4
contention that it is not the clerk
the peace's duty to look on the list
the assessors but the list as revised