The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1892-02-17

valuation Of S25o,ooo and at which II
now stands charged with tax Of IS, los,
has anything on which it can stand. The
duplicate put in the hands Of the treas
urer is his warrant to collect the taS
which has been ascertained in a proper
manner to be due and if represented by
what appears in the auditors duplicate.
Would not some Of the same conse'
oueuces follow, which would follow if an
execution were to issue out Of the court
of common pleas and an attempt were
made to enforce it after substantial
changes are made by competent authority
in the judgments on which It IS founded:
This view of the case has not been con.
sidered in argument and no ruling is
made upon it.
We will proceed to consider the case as
if there had been no writ of nlandamus
against the auditor and upon the state oi
facts as now presented to this court
This is not proceeding to interfere
with the collection of taxes with which
the courts are forbidden to interfere by
sections III and 269 of the general stat
utes. It i. only a question as to the
proper mode of arriving at the true val
uation and the proper tax cha-geable
thereon by the officers and in the manner
provided by law. Where the officers
charged with the duty of assessing pro
perty confne themselves to their duties
as prescribed by law, this court cannot
interfere even without the provisions OF
sections III and 26e supra, but when they
do not follow the rules laid down which
give them jurisdiction, it is the duty Of
this court always to open the complaints
of those who claim to have been Illegally
dealt with in these officers. The views of
this court as to the construction Of sec
tions III and 26e applicable to case like
this will be found in the case Of the State
of South Carolina ex relatione the Ma
tioual Bank of Newberry VS.. Wallace c.
Cromer as Auditor of Newberry County,
heard with this case and in which the
opinion and judgment Of this court has
been this day filed.
Here, as in the case against the auditor,
the next question is whether the valuation
of this personal property at $4,000,
charged with taxes to the amount Of
s., ,o25, is valid, or whether the increased
at $4,000, charged with taxes
to the amount Of s., los, IS the valid assess
nent. It is not now an enquiry whether
the smaller or the larger amount is the
true value. That question is not now in
any way before this court, the question is,
which IS the valuation ascetained by the
officers and in the mode provided by law.
This question is a very important one,
because if this assessment raised by the
auditor on mere information and belief,
the source of which is not stated, is to be
held valid and binding on the taxpayers,
then the auditor may in the same way
and on any information he may regard as
raise the valuation of every
item of personal property returned for
by the citizens, however honest
y and truly, and thus increase the public
burden to an amount limited only by his
own discretion.
Banks are not alone involved It is now
denied that the auditor acted on an order
rom the comptroller-general. We will
consider the case as though the claim now
IS that the auditor acted on his belief as
% the valuation of this property, though
we have examined this return of the
treasurer and we do not find it anywhere
stated that the auditor believed the in
formation on which he acted to De true.
The auditors own affidavit in this case
only claims that at the time he increased
he valuation under what he believed to
be an order of the comptroller-general,
1e had reliable information that The pro-
oerty was returned at less than its true
value and there is no statement of any
and belief that $3.50, 900 was
ne true valuation.
Again, it is nowhere stated that there
vas any exercise of Judgment or Of dis
:retionary power on the part of the au-
iitor on which he based this increase of
7aluation on his belief that not $3.50 600,
,ut $3.50, 900, was the true valuation. His
or his belief, whichever it
nay be, while set up as contemporaneous
With, or resulting in the increase of valua-
ion, is not clearly set up on which as the
5round on which the anditor based his
conclusion and his action in this matter
he believes that he was directed to do
he act by the comptrolier-general, and
!cted on this belief We will, however,
consider the case under the assumption
hat the auditor believed $780, 900 not to
,e the true value, but that $3.50, 600 was,
md that the increase in valuation was his
'fhcial judgment, based on this informa-
ion and belief, and this was his own
'hcial act.
The authority is claimed under sections
SO, 24o, 24I and 242 of the General
Statutes.
Section 24o refers to only certain crin,i-
lal proceedings for the offences therein
tated. Section 242 provides for certain
:osts and expenses incurred in the in
provided for in section 2se.
In section 259 it is provided that the
uditor shall notify party and commence
n investigation in these cases:
First, Where any person has evaded
making return.
Second, Making false return of per
onal property for taxation.
Third, Has not made full return.