The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1892-09-12
SHENANDOAH. PA. MONDAY. SEPTEMBER IL. 1892.

fused. Some of the committee wanted to
raise it.
T. J. Higgins said the valuation on his
property was too high in comparison with
the Kelly property. There was consider
able discussion, after which the Third
ward committee went into consultation.
The com mmittee then recommended that the
j. Kelly property be raised from 81 300
to SO 600 and that the Higgins property be
reduced to IS, 600, or S4 600 for each house.
1t had previously been assessed at SO, 900.
John Scheily asked that his North
Main street property be reduced from
81, 800. The building is old and the pro-
perty only cost him $1,000 about seven
years ago. He gets 1926 per month from
part of it, The assessment was sustained.
Jacob Noll asked to have his property
reduced from S2,25O. The committee ac-
knowledge that a mistake had been made
in assessing the property as lot and half
instead of lot and nine feet and the assess-
ment was reduced to 1000
Thomas Glenwrights pro perty on Main
street had been assessed at s. 900 by the
Commissioners. The committee made it
81 coo Mr. G enwright wanted to be as
sessed the same as his neighbors, but not
the same as those who receive 800 per
month in rents and he receives but S52.
The assessment was sustained.
John F, Higgins asked that his building
on leasehold property on South Main
street be reduced from S4OO He said he
built It several years sgo for S342. 1t was
reduced to $500.
Mrs. John EARLY appealed. The Com
mssioners made her assessment $1,000.
The committee reduced it to 81 900. She
did not object to the valuation, but wanted
it reduced because she was widow. The
| assessment was sustained.
Mrs. Michael Welsh, widow, objected
to the assessment on her property, but as
she positively refused to be sworn her case
was dismissed and the assessment was
sustained.
William Neiswender appealed His
Main street property had been raised from
81, 200 to 81, 500 He said it was not in pro
portion to properties owned by Mrs. Grumm
and committeeman Beddsll and Klmmel.
The committee said a mistake had been
made. That Mr.. Neiswenter had been
assessed for piece of ground that did not
belong to him. The assessment was re-.
duced to 81 200
John Post, Sr,, objected to being as
sessed at S7O0. He said he was crippled by
rheumatism. The assessment was sus-
tanned but Mr.. Posts personal tax was
reduced to $50
Martin McGUire's assessment was re-
duced from $500 to 500
Michael NJ lGrath objected to an assess
ment of $500, but his request was refused
John Wagner said an assessment of
So 900 on his Main street property was too
high. He said i! was mortgaged for So 400.
No reduction was made.
Peter Hileys Oak and West street
property had been assessed By the Com
missioners at 81, $50 and the committee cut
it down to 81, 400 He said the buildings
were old and not worth much. This case
was discussed for some time and finally 8
motion that the valuation be raised tc
81, 900 was carried. One of the committee
men said he had told Mr.. Hiley to 'leavC
well enough alone"
Mrs. Patrick McNealis appealed from an
assessment Of 81 600, but it was sustained
John Lenahan appealed from one rs.
sessment OF 5000 and another of $500. Also
one on the Michael Lenabsn property foi
5000, but all were sustained.
John Shultz had been assessed 81 600 by
the Commissioners, The committee re-
duced it to $3.50 Shultz said the property
was not worth 5000, but the committed
figure was sustained.
An appeal was made for Ellen O'Brien
of the Fourth ward. She had been as
sessed 81 100 for two properties. The com
mittee cut it down to $3.50. Mrs O Brien'
request to have it cut down from tha
| figure was denied.
The assessment on the South Main stree
property owned by Mrs Ellen Franey wa
reduced by motion from 5000 to s., 700.
j. j. Franey objected to having his Goa
street property being raised $500 higher
! than the property of his neighbor. 1t wa
explained that the neighbor was Mrs
Delaney. The figures showed that the
Delaney property, including that in the
name of M. e. Doyle was assessed al
$3.50, while the Franey property wai
fixed at 81, 500-S difference Of 81, $50. The
assessments were sustained
On motion of John F. Higgins, seconded
by t. @, Waters, a vote Of thanks was ex'
tended the Commissioners, their solicitor
and clerks.
Mr.. Wilhelm thanked the committee in
behalf of the Commissioners. He said the
officials had received excellent treatment
at the hands of the committee and the peo,
Pile of Shenandoah and they would recipro'
cate.
Mr.. B. G.. Hess wanted the Commits
sioners sworn to stand by their promises tc
the committee, as the latter had been
sworn, but the suggestion was laughed
down.