The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-12-10
MANY TAX APPEALS.
Thirty-Eight People Want
Their Bills Reduced
Some Get There.
WOMEN, CHIEFLY, COMPLAIN.
Some of the Grounds Are Simply
Absurd-Personal Taxes
.Sworn Off"

Mdrulu w ara mas L00 QISlluRuiSucu
honor of being the first person this year
to appeal from his tax assessment, After
the Board of Appeal began business last
night. Martin thrust himself in front of
the score of people who wanted to make
appeals, and informed the Commission
ers that 5000 was an unfair assessment
for his property at No. 50 York street.
He wanted the valuation reduced to
$4,000. Martin made the necessary affi-
davit and his petition was filed. During
the evening thirty-seven other dissatisfied
property owners asked the Board to re-
duce their assessed valuations.
THE KICKERs.
Lewis johnson of No. 101 Cottage street. COM
planned that his house and lot aC the number
mentioned had been assessed for $1,000. He
said $500 was sufficient value as the building
was worthless shanty.
Mrs Margaret Murphy of No 1893 Ninth street
wanted her valuation reduced from 5000 TO
$4, 500. Her assessment had not been increased
since 1890
Margaret Holden's property at No. 945 Fifth
street was increased from 81, 700 to $4,000 She
wanted liberal reduction. She was represent
ed by James Holden, her husband.
P. H. Hanly complained that his furniture
store building at Nos Newark avenue had been
assessed for S30000 while in 1891 it was assessed
for S22 600 and No 43 adjoining, had been assessed
for $1,000, while in 1850 it taxed for SIS 600,
Mr.. Hanly paid $25, 500 for No. AZ Newark ave-
nue., and recently put new front into No. Al.
He said he supposed the Tax Commissioners in
creased his assessment Tor that reason. He
made no complaint against an assessment for
$4,000 for personal property. y
Hugh Haley. of No. 1855 York street, petitioned
for q reduction at that number from ST. $40 to
$1,000. He said his neighbours property was
more valuable than his, and was assessed at but
only $1,000. He also complained that his prop
erty at No. 81 Bright street was valued at 81 900.
at least $1,000 too high. He also asked tho
Board to reduce the valuation of 5000 on prop
erty at No. 81 Bright street to $4,000.
John G. Sandermann, executor of the estate
of D. Sandermann. was aggrieved because the
Tax Commissioners had increased the assess-
ment on property at No. go Cambridge avenue
from S., 200 in 1891 to $4,000 this year. He said
there was no excuse for the increase.
Mrs. Thomas H. Cunningham complained
that the property at No. State street had been
assessed $4,000 Last year 1t was assessed
So, 500.
Henry Schmidt of No. s7 Prescott place in
been assessed $500, while fair valu alton
would be $780, He also said that his property
at Nos. 12l and 1872 Halliday street had been as
sessed $3 900 and ST. 500 respectively, while fair
valuation would be $500 and $1,000.
Mrs. j. A. O'Connor of No. 228 First street
complained that the Tax Commissioners had as
sessed her $500 for house and lot at No. s67
Fourteenth street and that there was no build
ing OF any description on the lot. She wanted q
reduction to $3.50.
Jacob KeilIer's complaint about the valuations
of his home, No. 562 Henderson street, was
curious one. 1t was assessed So, 800 and the
valuation iu 1891 was the same. In 1880 the
1T was much less. Mr.. Keller said he could not
explain the cause of these fluctuations. He
thought fair valuation was ST, 500.
Mrs. Wilhelmiua Steinmetz Of No. 70 Sherman
avenue also had original complaint. Her
home was assessed for SO, 600; She valued 1t at
not more than $4,000, but it was able to carry a
mortgage of $1,000.
Mrs. Ella W. Dickinson's petition was equally
curious. She lives at No. 16 Vaudeville avenue,
and was assessed ST. 300 for the house and lot
$500 for personal property and one dollar Tor
poll tax. Mrs. Dickinson declared she had not
| more than $500 worth of personal property, and
she was quite positive that she ought not to pay
poll tax.
Josephine Hall appealed from the assessment
of SO, 600 on her home at No. 143 Hancock ave-
nue. She said the Tax Comm issioners had in
creused the valuation from $2, 800 in 1891 to
| 600 without justification. Sha had made n o
| improvements
Joseph B. Stone, of No. 501s jackson avenue,
said his property at No. no Communipaw ave-
| nue. had been assessed for ST., eco while it only
would be $500.
CASES ADJUDGED.
After hearing many more complaints
the Board OF Appeals acted on the follow
ing:-
j. f. whittlige. No. GIG jersey avenue. per-
sonal property assessed for $40, cancelled.
Estate of j. Van Kleek, No. b45 Jersey ave-
| nue., personal property assessed for $500, can
celled.
Peter DAILY, No. 1S9 Railroad avenue value of
real property reduced from 81, 800 to Sd, 300.
Patrick Hall, lot 5, block 304, on Bright street,
reduced from So, coo to 50, 500
Mrs. A. E. Anness, No. AZ Glenwood avenue
value of $1,000, confirmed
Peter Daly, No. 430 Henderson street, value
Of real property reduced from 50, SOD to 81, ,900
| Sarah F. Barton, No. $40 Grand street, per-
sonal property assessed for $500, cancelled
Mrs. Catherine Dinan of No, $50 Thirteenth
street, poll tax ST. cancelled.
Joseph B. Stone, Nos 1S0 and 1872 Railroad
| avenue, reduced from $1,000 each to 81, 600
each.
George H. Kurade, No. 148 Fulton street. per-
sonal property, assessed $780, cancelled The
property Kurade assessed consisted of grocery
store which belonged to his son George. He
made complaint under oath that his son was
not assessed properly. The Commissioners will
cause tax bill to be sent to the son.
Frederick Anness' estate, No. SO Montgomery
street, assessed S16,OO0 value confirmed.
Henry Fehrens of No. 1872 Beacon avenue
taxed value OF 81, 300 confirmed.
Mrs. Bertha Baumann, No s5s York street,
personal property assessed $500, cancelled.
John A Schefding, Jr., No. 541 Bergen ave-
nue., assessed S4,500 confirmed; personal prop
art ASsAScad 33G0