The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-13

COMPANY attorney, that ne expected 10
| come down and gather in the companys
new Office furniture.
THE 1897 ACTION.
AS to the action of 1897 all members ex-
cept Sylvester johnson joined in an answer
as follows:
William H. Schmidt, Joseph E. Boswell,
| Harry B. Smith and William A Bell for
answer and return to the writ issued here
| IN, requiring them to show cause, if any,
why they should not be punished for con-
tempt OF this court, upon their respective
oaths show to the court that as to so much
of the petition filed herein as refers TO their
acton as members Of the County Board OF
REVIEW, OF Marion County, State OF lnd1-
ana, for the year 1887, that they, and each
| OF them, We're, in the year 1S9f, members or
the County Board of Review of Marion
| county, Indiana, and that such members
OF said board it became and was their duty
TO examine and pass upon the tax returns
made by the several corporations in said
| county, to the several assessors OF the sew
eral townships in said county; that among
other returns that were submitted to them
| by the township assessor or center town.
| SHIP Marion county, Indiana, was the re-
turn made by the complainant herein, the
Indiana Manufacturing Company, which
was submitted TO said board by the own
ship assessor of said Center township, Ma
T1on county, Indiana; that said Board OF
Review caused notice to be sent TO the
complainant the Indiana Manufacturing
Company notifying It that on certain day
anu nour, IN sald notlce set 1orll' Ine mat
ter of the assessment of its corporate prop
erty would be considered, and notifying 1t
to be present; that the complainant failed,
neglected and refused to appear, through
or by any of its officers, before said board,
at the said time, so specified in said no.
tlce, or at any other time during the SeS-
sions Of said board; that When the matter
OF the return of the complainant came on
to be heard before the board, no enc APP
bearing in behalf of the complainant ana
A. K. HOVey, who was acting DIS attorney
for the county, and the attorney general or
the State of Indiana, w. A. ketCh I'M, who
advised the board in 1885, not being pres
I
the board, the said board, acting upon " hat
it was informed and understood to be the
year, 1885, and believing, that the
said decree and writ Of injunction
in said cause, No 9066, did not APP
ply to the acts of the board in any years
subsequent to 1895, made and entered the
order fixing the valuation of the complain
ants property set out in the complaint
herein; that at said time said board had no
information knowledge of the result OF
the appeal that had been taken in said
cause No. 1906, or of the decision of the Cir
cult Court of Appeals on SAID appeal; that
after the complaint and proceedings herein
were instituted, and the notice was served
upon members of said board to appear and
show cause why they should not be at
tached for contempt herein, the said board
reconSidered and rescinded its action taken
on the 25th day of June, 1897, set forth in
the complaint and afterwards hXed the
valuation Of the property OF the complain
ant for taxation for the year 1897 at $6,534
being the amount returned by the com
plainant personal property within the
state, that they ana eacn OF Inen, III luelr
acts and dongs as members of said board
in 1897, in adopting the motion on June 25
1897, as set forth in the complaint, acted in
good faith and upon what they believed 10
be the advice of said attorneys as to the
effect of the decree entered in said cause,
and believing and relying upon said advice,
and believing that said decree so entered
as aforesaid did not apply or was not m
tended TO apply to their action in 1897 and
they further show and state that they, IN
their said action in 1897, did not believe that
they were violating the order and decree of
this court, and did not intend TO he in con-
tempt of this court, and had no intention
of violating or diSobeying said decree and
writ of injunction and order of this court
but acted in good faith, believing at the
time of taking said action that they had
full power and authority so to act
Mr.. Johnson, in a separate answer
aVerred that he not present at the ses-
sion when the assessment of the company
was fixed.
Mr. Bradford. attorney for the company,
said he was willing to accept the answers
as correct. In regard to Mr.. Johnson, he
had got his information of his presence
from the official transcript of the stenog-
rapher of the board, in which he was noted
as present, but he was willing to accept his
affirmation against that certificate. The
court, therefore, dismissed the proceedings
as to Mr.. Johnson.
AS Mr. Bradford began to argue the ques-
ton of how much the company had been
damaged by the contempt, the court called
his attention to views the court mad eX-
pressed in the water works case where 1t
was declared that there was a large dr.
ference between contempt arising from the
effort to balk the administration OF justice
and that arising in an action Tor the pro-
lection of private rights, indicating that in
the latter the measure of punishment was
to be determined by the amount of damage
these private rights had suffered by reason
of the contempt. Mr.. Bradford spoke very
briefly, holding that the company mad peen
chiefly damaged by the injury OF us crtoit
caused by placing these taxes against II
upon the duplicate. Mr.. HAWKINS, IN reply,
pointed out the fact that the company had
not in the former decree asked that the
against it for former years be eX-
plunged, and it therefore could not
have suffered much by the record
OF 1896 He also called attention TO the tact
that it had suffered this supposed damage
for year without asking remedy from
the court He declared that 1t could not
possibly have suffered from the action of
1887 inasmuch as this action had been re-
scinded in so short a time
THE COURTS JUDGMENT.
In pronouncing judgment the court spoke
substantially as follows: In the year 1895
a. bill was filed by the present complainant,
the object of which was to procure an adj
judication by this court of the validity of
that portion of a statute of the State pro-
Tossing to tax patent rights issued by the
government of the United States, and also
to restrain the officers of the State and
county from assessing or collecting taxes
from the defendant upon values predtcated
upon patent rights or stock representing
the value of patent rights. The court made
a decree adjudging the statute lnVahd SO
far as it prOfessed to tax patents, and
that the authorities of the State and
county had no rghtful power or authority
to assess and collect taxes upon patent
rights. Now the question has been made
whether the decree was broad enough to
put the defendants in contempt of court on
the ground that they have zone acts cal
culated to defeat the purpose of the decree,
and there has been debate upon the extent
of the decree.
DUTY OF A LAWYER.
"And it is contended that the defendants,
being laymen, unskilled in the law, hav-
ing taken and acted upon the advice of the
county attorney and attorney general ought
to be excused. The court is unwilling to
announce it as the law that a layman
may be excused simply on account of the
advice of counsel. However, if this is true,
| should be inclined to be much more lem
lent with the layman who so erred than
with the lawyer that advised him. 1t is the
duty of the lawyer, as a member of the
bar of this court, well duty grow
ing out of his citizenship, to obey the law,
and the fact that he is learned in the law
places upon him a larger measure of duty
to not violate the law than rests upon the
layman. Thus while the court would look
upon the advice of the lawyer as mitigating
the offense of the layman it would feel
like laying its hand very heavily upon a
member of the bar of this court advising
a client to violate it's order of injunction.
on the contrary the court regards it as
the duty of the member of the bar, when
called upon to cOnstrue an order of injunc-
ton TO be very careful to advise against its
violation and while it might be lenient to