The record-union., 1897-01-03

IA description by legal subdivisions,
swamp land surveys or natural bounda-
rieS OF each tract assessed. 2-The
number Of acres in each tract. 3-The
names of the owners of each tract. if
knowns and if unknown, that fact. f.
The amount of charges assessed against
each tract. ~
1t will be observed that in these two
SECTIONS the assessment is to be fixed
upon the tract as a whole and not at a
price of so much per acre for each acre
included IN the tract, but the Commits
sioners are to fix the assessment as a
Charge 2ainst the whole tract.
Ihe assessment list in question seems
TO I'LL all the requirements of the stat
ute. 1t fixes the assessment upon the
tract as tract. 1t gives the number
OF acres in the tract. 1t cannot be
inferred that because the number of
acres in the tract that each acre is
assessed because the presumption is in
favor of the Commissioners fixing the
amount assessed against the tract, that
they fixed it upon such land as was
benefited by the reclamation works.
,
upon the face of the assessment lists
itself. Defendants counsel contends
that we cannot go outside of the list
to explain it by oral testimony, and
that tne testimony given by Commis-
sioner Sheehan and others upon that
subject was inadmissible.
The testimony of Mr.. Sheehan was
brought out by the defendant herself
upon cross examination, and upon her
right to show that her land was ar
bItrarily and excessively assessed with
out regard to propor'tionate benefits.
] his she had a right to do. Reclama-
tion District 531 vs. Phillips, 108 Cal. 320,
settles beyond any question the much
nlooted question whether the lists of the
Commissioners could be impeached in
favor of affirmative of such PROPOSE
ton.
If in an attempt to avail herself OF
such a right defendant establishes be-
yond question the validity of the as
SeSsment she cannot complain.
The evidence shows that there are
three classes of land upon each tract in
the district. That is, river land or
fruit land, the alfalfa land and the
bean land. Of the first there is about
thirty acres, of the second twenty, and
of the third fifty acres in defendant S
tract. The river land is worth rela-
lively much more than the alfalfa, and
the alfalfa in its turn worth much more
than the bean land. If the entire tract
was comprised of any one of these
classes, then l could not see how the
assessment list could consistently sus-
x,;, - a1o o,,,, hot / in,
ton to its benefits. But it embraces
all three classes, as does every tract in
the district. They fixed charges upon
the tract with view of the relation
each class had to the other, and also
they must have considered the fact Of
the first and most valuable class, and
which to the acre received the greatest
value there was five and three-quarters
that did not receive any benefit because
it lay between the levee and river.
While the witnesses differ somewhat
in fixing the proportion of the benefits
that come to each tract by reason of the
reclamation works, they all adhere TO
the fact that each class in the tract re-
lies upon the other class, and that value
of the reclamation improvements must
be taken as whole, which the Com
missioDers say they did. That is, they
considered the fact that each tract COM
prised all three classes; that the rela-
tive quantities in the district were the
same.
1 realize that it is difficult to make
exact proportions in an assessment list
Of this kind, and if absolute exactness
We're required it would be impossible
to make a list IN most instances that
would stand under a test, but to my
mind 1t appears that the Commissioners
have complied substantially with the
provisions of the statute; that they
have been exceeding careful to comply
with the law, and have conscientiously y
discharged their duty.
1t follows from the foregoing that the
list should be sustained as valid and
legal
There is another question to be con-
sidered Some time prior to commence
ment of thls SUIT an action was COM
menced in this court by plaintiff against
G.. A Knott and others, including this
defendant, under the provisions of Sec
ton 3493h of the Political Code, for
the purpose of obtaining a decree of
court declaring that the assessment list
was valid In due time a judgment
was given ard made in that action de-
| cIaring that the list was valid The
plaintiff in support of his case placed
the judgment roll in that action In evil
dence, both as a part of his case in
chief and in rebuttal.
| The defendants counsel in his very
able brief contends that the Section
| 349312 is contrary to the provisions of
Article ". Section %, of the Constitu-
ton. and hence the judgment roll is of
no effect. And contends, l. That the
section relates exclusively to a special
class of cases, that is, the determination
Of the validity of reclamation assess
ments. ,. That the summons is of a