The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-09-03

in connection with the reduction of the
tax assessments on the franchise of the
Spring Valley Water Works and other
corporations. His Honor had so an
nounced, but yesterday an additional
brief was filed by General ]. II. Dickinson
presenting more reasons why the indict-
ment should be dismissed. Judge Sea-
we'll has not had time to thoroughly &c
into the subject-matter of the new brief
and so the decision on the demurrers is
indefinitely postponed.
The legal points involved in the briet
hinge on the proposition that if the Super
visors were wrong in making the reduc.
tons com planned of it was simply an error
of Judgment, and that the board is not
subject to prosecution for such mistake
The brief says:
1t is alleged in the accusations against the
Supervisors that an application was made by
the Spring Valley Water Works for reduction
OF the assess ment on the franchise from So =.
800, 600 to 81 SOC, 600, and that the accused
Supervisors, willfully, knowingly and cor.
ruptly, with intent to defraud the City of a
portion of its revenue, reduced the assessment
In all the counts it is alleged that the de.
PENDANTS with the Board of Equalization par
ticipated in the reduction, but it does not saw
how-whether by argument, force or intimida-
ton, and no facts are stated to show it was
done in an unlawful manner. The presump-
tion OF law is that it was done in lawful
manner, the contrary not being shown.
General Dickinson claims in behalf OF
the Supervisors:
That the accusations acknowledge that the
Board of Equalization had jurisdiction of the
question for the reduction of the assessment
applied for.
That the action of the board in dealing with
the valuation Of the property-lists on the ron
is based upon evidence which may be adduced
before the board.
That the accusations do not allege that the
board did not act upon the evidence before it.
That the order IN the premises is conclusive
that 1t did not act upon such evidence as was
necessary.
That there is no allegation in the accuse.
lions that the board did not examine on oath
the person or agent making the application
touching the value of the property Of the COM
panies named.
That there is no allegation that the agent Of
the applicants did not answer all questions
pertinent to the inquiry, and therefore the
presumption is that the applicants were exam.
ined in accordance with the law.
That the Board of Equalization, having jur-
isdiction and having complied with the sec.
tons of the Political Code respecting the
value of the property, its order was conelu.
sive.
That jurisdiction to determine the issue in.
wolves the power TO determine it enormously.
That jurisdiction to determine the fact al
evidence involves the power to draw errone.
Gus conclusions from 1t.
That as there was evidence before the board
in support OF Its findings 1t must be treated as
conclusive, Notwithstanding the fact that
there was other evidence that might be re.
garded as raising conflict Herewith
And that the accusations are insufficient to
follow the language of the statute In such q
case as this.
The briei goes on to take issue with the
allegations of conspiracy in the accusation
and with other technical words and
phrases.
Judge SewalI says he will announce his
decision in the matter as soon as possible.