The San Francisco call., 1896-07-19
Expert Dunn said the real estate assess
m ont u-a S256 600

Expert Dunn said the real estate assess
ment was 1856 600.
The Supervisors were about to treat the
Grand Jury figures as worse than useless
when Mr.. Dunn challenged the correct
ness of the Assessors statement to the
jury.
The Supervisors were inclined to insist
that the Assessor knew, ana one of the
mem bers of the board could hardly re-
strain his glee at what he supposed was
the utter discontinue OF the meddl esome
Grand Jury.
Assessor Siebe insisted that $4O0, 600
more of real estate had been assessed to
the company than the Grand Jury figures
represented.
One of the Jurors asked: "When was
this assessment NADER"
Supervisor Taylor (chairman) said: SIT
is the record of the Assessors books"
Mr.. Dunn replied: Il beg your pardon !;
it is not the record, or the record has been
! changed since therol was turned over.
| have taken from the index-book of real
estate all entries of assessments of this
corporation. l have the list of each piece
| of property here with me now. | made it
after the books were turned over to the
board, and ii any additions have since
been made l have no knowledge of the
| change"
| Mr. Dunn was about to give his ex-
!
pervisors discovered that time was very
precious; that the board must hear other
| parties at IL o'clock.
1t was explained after the session of the
! board that the Assessor had taken. six
pieces of real estate in which the water
company owned a fractional interest and
credited the company with the entire
ownership. The total value of these six
pieces of real estate is $579, $50, of which
the undivided interest of Spring Valley
! is $l64, 900. Being a co-owner, the Assessor
credits Spring Valley with 100000 and
goes to the Supervisors and leads them to
believe that the assessment is $400, ,000
/ larger than it actually is.
I The Grand Jury simply takes this view
of it: IF the Supervisors want to be de-
ceived the juggling is at hand to deceive
| them"
| The Spring Valley case, interesting as it
was In the introduction of peculiar meth
DDS, was not marker to the Central Gas
! Light Company incident.
Central Gaslight Company, deficiency
$90S, ,535, /" read Mr.. Russell.
Assessor Siebe-Not in existence. AS
sessed to Pacific Gas Improvement Com
pany.
The delegates from the Grand Jury pro-
| ceeded to show that the Central Gaslight
| Company had 10000 shares of stock in
March last, valued then at sos share, OF
/ 9l,JUU,VUU.
Mr. Dunn said the Pacific Gas Improve
ment Company makes no statement that
it has any leased property whatever. On
its own proper assessment there is an un-
dervaluation of $169, SIT. Nothing of the
| Central is included in its statement.
Bring the gas people here" said Mr..
| Siebe.
"Oh, it is IL o'clock now," said one OF
the Supervisors. 1--WE will take this
under advisement and give it fair consid-
Grafton"
The Grand Jurors were inclined to In
sist tlat the stock of the Central Gashght
! Company, which was worth 81 600, 900 last
March, should be assessed.
The Assessor contended that it was in
cluded in the assessment of the Pacific Gas
1 Improvement Company.
Mr.. Dunn-The Pacific Gas Improve
ment Company pays only on Its own prop
erty.
Mr.. Herzer-We simply say that it has
not been omitted, but is assessed to the
Pacific Gas improvement Company.
Mr.. O'Farrell, whose ability to reach the
true inwardness of complicated transac-
tions is known, asked some "foundation'
questions, but Mr.. Siebe replied .sSend
for the gas company"
| The situation became so embarrassing
that the Supervisors studied the clock with
| eager interest.
Mr.. McLennan said the Grand Jury had
not included the Central Gaslight Com