The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-06-27

to be furnished and filed with the As
SCISSOR under the provisions of 1929 and
1858 of the Political Code, or any fail
ure on the part of the taxpayer to
obey a subpoena issued and served as
therein provided, or a failure to answer
any question propounded by the As
SCISSOR concerning the property of such
taxpayer after the service of such sub
pena, the Assessor is authorized and
empowered to make an arbitrary as
sessment of the property of such tax
payer and such assessment is not
thereafter usbject to modification or
reduction by either the County or State
Board of Equalization.
From finding %, above quoted, it ap-
pears that the Assessor furnished the
blank form of statement to the defend
ant in this case, who thereafter caused
the same to be sworn to by one of its
officers and duly returned to the AS
SCISSOR; and that the Assessor thereaf-
ter, without having subpenaed the de-
PENDANT as required by the sections of
the Political Code above cited, and in
the absence of a failure on the part of
the defendant to either refuse to make
statement, or to refuse to obey any
subpoena, or to refuse to answer under
oath any question propounded by the
Assessor, after the service of any sub
pena, did proceed to make an arbitrary
assessment.
The defendant contends, for this rea-
son, that such assessment is absolutely
void and of no effect.
In the case of Weyse against Craw-
ford, reported in the S5th Cal, at page
1876, the Supreme Court of this State
passed upon practically the identical
question involved in the case at bar.
The facts in that case were as fol-
lows: 1.-The plaintiffs were the owners
and in possession of divers pieces of
real property, and, among others, of
that known as Naud's warehouse hold
ing the same as tenants in common,
the plaintiff, o. G. Weyse, being the
manager and having the control there
of. In or about the month of April,
1887, o. G. Weyse, in response to the
demand of the Assessor, made out and
delivered to said Assessor a statement
under oath, in the form prescribed by
law and required by that officer, giving
description of what he claimed and
swore to be all the property owned by
troll of himself or his co-tenants on the
first Monday of March in that year.
This statement included the lot and
warehouse in question, with divers
other pieces of real estate, and a list
of personal property, but did not in
clude any goods, wares and merchan-
disc on store in the warehouse. Sub
sequent conferences were had between
the Assessor, or his deputy, on the one
side, and the plaintiff and his foreman
at the warehouse on the other. in ref
erence to the personal property in the
warehouse AT these conferences the
officer was shown through the ware
mouse, and given every opportunity he
required to inspect the property. and
was told that none of it was the prop-
erty of plaintiffs; that it was simply
property left on storage by different
parties, and for which warehouse re-
ceipts had been issued in the regular
course of business; that the plaintiffs
had no interest in it or control over if
and did not then know who it belonged
to, or who held the receipts therefor.
but at his request the officer was fur
niShed with a written memorandum of
the quantity and character of the prop
erty so far as known to the plaintiffs
or their foreman in charge, and of the
persons to whom warehouse receipts
were originally issued therefor. This
memorandum, however, was not sworn
to. Under these circumstances the AS
SCISSOR arbitrarily added to the sworn
statement made by plaintiffs, and made
an arbitrary assessment against them
Of an item as follows: Miscellaneous
merchandise and grain in Naud's ware
house, $4,000 And opposite the item
made the following note on the margin
OF the assessment: Neglected to re-
turn statement as required by Section
$685."
The Supreme Court, in discussing the
right of the Assessor under the forego-
ing statement of facts, said:
This arbitrary assessment and the
accompanying marginal note was made
without authority of law and was void.
The tax levied and imposed upon that
assessment never became a lien upon
the real or any property of plaintiffs,
and plaintiffs never became liable
therefor.
The error into which the Assessor
has fallen in this case may be a COM
mon one, but it is none the less an err
ror. All proceedings in the nature
of assessing property for purposes of
taxation, and in levying and collecting
taxes thereon are in invitum, and must
be strict juris
1t is the duty of the Assessor to de-
mand from each person liable to assess
ment in his county a statement to be
made under oath, as provided in Sec
tons 1929 and 5000 of the Political
Code. If he makes that statement,
then, no matter how false the Assessor
may believe it to be, he has no power
thereafter to make an arbitrary assess
ment on the ground of neglect or refu-
sal to return statement. But if the
Assessor believes the statement to be
false he has right, under Section
3632, to subpoena the party making the
statement, and also any other person
whom he may suppose to have knowl-
edge upon the subject and examine him
or them upon oath as witnesses are ex-
amined, touching any property which is
asseSSable in his county, or in the alb
sence of a statement, or an insufficient
description of real property, he may
cite the party to appear in the Superior
Court for such examination, under Sec
ton 1854, where summary hearing
is guaranteed to him, and all proceed
ingS will be had at the expense of the
taxpayer necessary to secure the re-
quisite information for making the
proper assessment.
IF the property owner neglects or
refuses to make and return any state
ment under oath, or if, upon being sub
Denaed he refuses to aDppar before the
Assessor for examination, or refuses