Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-03-10

be the consequences, II tnelr example was
followed in the other counties of the State,
it is not for me to determine or even to
imagine.
This opinion had been dictated thus far
when my eye almost accidentally fell
upon the 9th paragraph of the answer of
the members of the majority Of the Levy
Court. do not recollect that this para
graph was particularly discussed, il dis
cussed at all, in the argumentof this cause,
and my attention to it may not have been
called in the argument. Let us considerit.
IL Is in these words
These defendants do not admit, but on
the contrary deny the truth OF the allega-
tions contained in paragraph b Of said bill
of complaint, in manner and form as the
same are therein set FORTH and they further
deny that the said Levy Court commits
sioners since the return of the said ASSESS
ment lists as aforesaid, have unlawfully or
wrongfully obliterated, erased or stricken
off the names of any persons appearing
ON the said lists returned by the said asses
sors as taxables of the said county.
"And these defendants in further answer
TO the allegations contained in said para
graph aver that whatever names have
been stricken by the said Levy Court conf
missioners from the said assessment lists
rs returned as aforesaid, were names
Illegally placed thereon, and that the said
Levy Court commissioners have not nor
have any of them obliterated or erased any
of the names so stricken from the said
lists"
What is the meaning Of this paragraph
Whatever names, say the majority of the
Levy Court, have been stricken by the
said Levy Court commissioners from the
said assessment lists as returned as afbre-
said, were names Illegally placed thereon,
and that the said Levy Court commission
ers have not nor have any of them OBJ
liberated or erased any of the names SO
stricken from the said lists Is or is not
this an admission that the Levy Court
commissioners have stricken some names
from the said assessment lists rs returned,
without stating what or how many? II
they have, the question whether the names
were illegally placed thereon is not ques-
tion for the Levy Court commissioners to
decide themselves but one for this court to
decide. Itis not for the Levy Court commits
sioners to assume that such names were
illegally on the assessment lists as returned
as aforesaid, and that therefore they had
the right to strike them therefrom, for
that is one of the points Of contest or
controversy in this cause. Ii these
names were on the assessment lists.
when returned to the said Levy Court,
then this court has already indicated the
opinion that they could not be stricken
thercfrom by the Levy Court commits
sioners. The answer in the sixth para
graph is also dubious and uncertain. The
majority of the members of the Levy
Court therein say, that they do not
admit, but on the contrary deny, the
truth of the allegations contained in para
graph 6 of said bill of complaint, in
manner and form as the Same are therein
set forth, and they further deny that it
was or is the intention or purpose of the
said commissioners of the said Levy Court
to change or alter the said lists or any of
them by arbitrarily and without warrant
of law striking off or expunging therefrom
any names or name whatsoever appearing
thereon" Now this is not the question in
this case. The question is have the Levy
Court already stricken off, or is it the in
tention or purpose of the said commits
sioners of the said Levy Court to change
or alter the said lists or any of them by
striking of or expunging therefrom any
name or names whatsoever appearing
thereon at the time when the same
were returned to the Levy Court.
expunged from the lists so returned, or
changed or altered the said lists by strik-
ing or expunging therefrom any names or
name whatsoever appearing thereon, the
charge of SO doing is not satisfactorily an
swered by saying that said action was not
done arbitrarily or without warrant of
law, for that question is for this court to
termine for themselves when the pro-
priety and legality of such action is the
matter in controversy in the cause. 1t
wont do for majority of the Levy Court
to say, as they have done in their answer
to this paragraph of the BILL that they, as
constituting majority of the said Levy
Court intend to cause TO be stricken from
said assessment lists so returned ms afore-
said such names and only such names as the
said Levy Court, while engaged in the dis
charge of what they term legal duty i'm
posed upon it of revising and correcting
lists, shall be satisfied on due examine
tion were unlawfully and do not legally
appear thereon. For the very question to
be decided is whether the lists so re-
turned by the assessors to the Levy
Court can be revised and corrected
by striking therefrom names which
were thereon when returned to the
Levy Court, and before the process of re-
vising and correcting, in said answer mem
toned, was undertaken or performed. In
like manner the seventh paragraph of the
answer Of the majority of the members of
the Levy Court might be analyzed and its
true meaning discovered. Whether the
number of names upon the said lists of
persons assessed as taxables has or has not
been reduced by the members of the Levy
Court making their answer to the bill OF
| complaint, has or has not been made since
the list on which said names appeared was
| returned to the Levy Court, Is the cues.
| tion, and whether there was legal authority
for the reduction of the number of names
upon the said list of persons as taxables is
more pertinently Thesis involved. But the
| character of this answer already sufficiently
appears by the examination and analysis
which have given it, and further time
devoted to the performance of such duties
may seem to be needlessly spent, and such
i ny t,a mr. ~ Nh a
uninteresting.
During almost so years l have been a
member of the bar of the State of Della.
ware. In early life l was counsel for the
Levy Court in the county in which | then
resided, and during that period of time
have never known and | have neve:
heard, until the argument of this case the
course which a majority of the Levy Court
of New Castle county say in their answer
they intend to pursue pursued by the Levy
Court in any county of this State 1t is
too late, therefore, for me officially tc
1 recognize its propriety, lawfulness OF
judicially to give countenance thereto.
Finally | remark that the Levy Court OF
| New Castle county is not, in the strict SENSE
of that word, court. But is a body OF
commissioners elected and constituted as
in the statutes OF the State is prescribed,
with limited and well-deiined powers and
duties; which powers and duties are in
| some respects, ana IN some respects only
quasi judicial, but in most respects minis
1 terial only.
l, therefore, adjudge and decree as fol,
\ lows:
And now, to wit, this second day OF
March, A. D., 1892, it appearing to the
chancellor that William L. Biggs, being
the clerk of the peace of New Castle county
and ex xofficio clerk of the Levy Court Of
New Castle county, has right to bring
! and maintain his stIit in thia court fnr I ls
causes alleged and existing, and is entitled
| to q decree of this court for his protection