The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1896-12-24
Belfast Tax Cases Decided.

Tileston Wadlin, Esq, Clerk of Courts.
has received certificates of opinion in two
tax cases of the city of Belfast They are as
follows:
Howard F. Mason VS.. Belfast Hotel Co.
and Haugh, Edwards & Co., trustees action
to recover $382 80, taxes against the Hotel
Co., for 1891, and trustee process was served
on Haugh, Edwards & Co., lessees of the
Crosby Inn, the property on which the taxes
| were assessed. The trustees disclosed that
the trustee writs were served on them April
1st, May 31st, June Both and Aug. 1st, 1896.
That on April 1st they owed the defend
| ants nothing; that they paid the rent due
May 1st on the 30th day of April; that
on May 31st between and a. m. a second
service of the writ was made on them they
had not then paid the rent due June 1st; ;
they paid it May 31st to the defendant, after
the service of the writ; that June 3Oth they
had paid the rent due July 1st, before ser
vice of the writ; that Aug. 1st they had not
paid the rent due that day; the service of
the writ was made at 1890 o'clock a. m. At
the January term, 1896, after hearing, the
trustee was charged with $266 66, and udg-
ment was ordered for plaintiff for the
amount of taxes and interest. Exceptions
filed and allowed. The entry ordered by
the Law Court is as follows:
principal defendants exceptions over
ruled. Trustees exceptions sustained as to
May rent. Trustees charged for July rent
only, S133 33, less their legal costs.
Rescript. In Collectors suit for taxes a
school district tax can be joined with the
able monthly cannot be attached until the
complete expiration of the month"
Dunton for plaintiff. Williamson for de-
fendant and trustees.
Howard F. Mason VS.. Belfast Hotel Co.
This was an action on the taxes assessed
against the Crosby Inn for the year 1894,
amounting to $332.S1. The defense relied on
irregularities in the qualification of one of
the assessors claimed that the abbreviaton
"do." was not legal the qualification of the
treasurer of the defendant corporation; on
an alleged irregularty in the Collectors de-
scription; and on a statute requiring that
suits for county taxes shall be brought in an
adjoining county. The Law Court orders as
follows:
Judgment for the plaintiff against the de-
tendant and against the land described in
the writ for S332 81.
Rescript.
/. That the official oath of the custodian
of public record was irregular does not
make the record inadmissibe in evidence
2. When the abbreviaton "do." in pub
lie record Enthusiastically stands for partic-
uiar word, it may be read as such a word.
). Evidence that particular person was
once chosen treasurer of private corpora
tion and has continued to act as such treas
urer, is sufficient evidence that he is still
treasurer as to third parties.
4. Under the statute of 1898, ch 314, the
collector of taxes may take his description
OF the land taxed from the assessors books.
.. The requirement of the statute that
suits +or county taxes shall he brought in an
adjoining county does not include suits
brought by town collector to recover taxes
assessed by the town assessors for State,
county and town purposes.
u. The statute is to be literally interpret
ed. The court will not assume that the land
owner IS unwilling that his land should he
taxed and will not regard him as an uuwil-
ling party to the tax proceedings.
City Solicitor Wardwell for plaintiff Will
hanson for defendant.