The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-11
John MAGUIRE WINS
The Old Tax Title Case Settled by
Judge Notation.
HE OWNS THE OPERA HOUSE
IL Is Also Declared That the Tax
Levy for the Year 1890 Is Iile-
gaI-The Suit Was Brought
by M. J. Connell.
HE OWNS THE OPERA HOUSE


| Mcguire. involving the ownership of
Maguire's opera house, was heard by
Judge Mediation yesterday and result
ed in decision and complete victory
for Mcguire. Judge McHatton's decis-
ion went farther. and declared the tax
levy for 1890 to have been illegal and,
In effect, that all tax deeds for that
year are null and void and that all un-
paid taxes cannot be collected The de-
/ cision was based on the fact that the
board of equalization in that year was
illegally constituted and that its pro-
ceedings were not in accordance with
the requirements of law and that there
fore the subsequent tax levy was also
illegal. AS 1t is probable that other
boards of equalization proceeded in like
manner to that of 1890 the effect of the
decision may be more far reaching than
appears at present. Mr.. Murray has a
large amount of other property in the
city and county in which he refused to
pay taxes on the ground that the taxes
were illegal and the result of the opera
house case seems to prove that he was
well informed as to the law of the mat
ter
The taxes on the opera house for 1890
were $572, and as they became delin-
quent the property was sold by the
county treasurer and was purchased by
Mr.. Connell, representing the Grand
Opera House company, composed of NJ.
]. Connell, John O'Rourke and w. r.
Kenyon. The property was not redeem
ed within the time allowed by law and
in June. 1894, Mr.. Connell procured a
treasurers tax deed for it and brought
suit against Murray and Mcguire for
possession of the property, for $1,000
damages and for 81 900 a month as al
legged rents and profits from June 10,
1894, to the date of judgment.
When the for trial
terday the parties waived a jury and
agreed to try the matter to the court
itself. John w. Forbis and ]. o. Ben
der appeared for Connell and his COM
pany. and William Scallon and ]. K.
Mcdonald for Murray and Mcguire.
Mr.. Forbis, in presenting the issues to
the court, said that the only thing to
be determined was the question of tax
title and as the law governing the tax
sales of 1890 did not regard a deed as
prima facie evidence, proofs were
necessary.
clerk and recorder, was the first and
only witness and testified as to the as
sessments on the opera house property
in 1890. The lots were returned at
$15,375 and the building at $4,000. The
commissioners proceedings of Oct. Is,
1890. at which meeting the tax levy was
fixed, was offered in evidence, also the
assessment roll for that year showing
the total assessed value of the opera
house property to be s25,375. The total
county and city taxes for the year were
$572.9 The proceedings of the board
of equalization was offered in evidence
and was objected to by Mr.. Scallon on
the ground that il was not shown that
proper notice of the meeting had been
given or that the city council had ap-
pointed a requisite number of alder
men to represent the city on the board.
and that II did not appear that the per-
sons pretending to act for the city had
been authorized to do so or had been
appointed by the city. The law requir-
ed the attendance of four aldermen, but
the record showed the presence of only
two. Mr.. Scallon cited some authori-
ties and read the law bearing upon the
question, some of the former holding
that failure to comply with the law
in that respect was fatal to the tax
levy and that the board of equalization
was illegally constructed and it's acts
therefore invalid. II the acts of the
board were void, said Mr.. Scallon, the
whole tax was void.
In replying Mr.. Forbis said he would |
be unable to show that the legal notice |
the proper number of aldermen had |
been appointed. City Clerk Mcmillan |
had informed him that only three al |
dermen had been appointed, and the |
records show that only two attended. |
Mr.. Forbis said he did not believe the |
publication of the notice of the meet |
ing of the board was necessary as the |
law itself fixed the date of the meet
ing. If the board was not properly con-
stituted Mr.. Mcguire should have made
his objection to the board itself and not |
having done so is precluded from COM
ing in at this late date to object to it.
The records do not show, said Mr.. For
before the board to have his taxes re-
duced or corrected. Both Mr. Forbis
and Mr.. Bender cited some authorities
and court decisions in support of the
claim that a published notice of the
board meeting was not necessary.
Mr. Scallon said Mr.. Maguire's fail
ure to appear before the board could
not be held as being against him. be-
cause the board having been illegally
he was not required to ap-
pear before IL, for IL could have done
him no good, the boards acts for or
against him being void because the
board had no legal existence.
Mr.. Forbis offered to prove by the
city clerk that three aldermen had been
appointed and that two OF the ap-
pointees acted on the board, and to
prove by the Inter Mountain Publish
ing company that a notice had been
published on the Saturday previous TO
the board meeting. which, however.
was not such a publication as required
by the law.
Judge Mediation sustained Mr.. Seal
on's objection and in ruling upon IL
said that a board of equalization is a
special tribunal and being a special
tribunal is limited in the exercise of it's
duties and limited in it's organization
and the manner of procedure. the limi-
tations being distinctly prescribed by
aw. This being so. before the record
IAN be admitted in evidence, il must
be shown that the board was properly
and legally constituted and that IT met
and acted in accordance with law. IL
Toes not appear that the board Of 1890
was a legally constituted board OF
equalization and IL does not appear that
is meetings were held in accordance
With law. nor that a legal notice had