The record-union., 1897-05-23
Important Decision Handed Down py
the Supreme Court.
An Attendant i'm British COLUMBIA
Hospital Shoots Young woman
and Then Commits Suicide-FearS
of Another Outbreak in San Fran
ciscO's Chinatown.

SAN FRANCISCO, May 2.-The Su-
preme Court handed down an important
decision to-day, negatiVing the con-
stitutionality of clause OF the Coun-
ty Fee Act of March %, 1895. The case
decided was that of the executors OF
the will of Mariana Malarin, deceased,
against Henry Pfister, Clerk Of the Su-
perior Court of Santa Clara County.
On June IS, 1895. the executors pre-
sented 10 Clerk Pfster an appraise
ment of Malarin's estate, and rendered
$50 as fees for filing. The estate was
valued at S243, 900, and the Clerk, un-
der the County Fee Act, demanded $40
fees, and refused to file the appraise-
ment until that sum had been paid.
The executors thereupon petitioned the
Superior Court for a writ of mandate,
requiring the Clerk to file the inven
tory and appraisement, which was de-
MED. An appeal from the judgment
was taken.
In passing upon the appeal from that
judgment Justice Beatty found, how
finding, as the fee demanded by the
Clerk was not permitted by the Con-
stitution. He said:
lature has attempted by that portion of
the Act in question to levy property
tax upon all estates of decedents, in
fantS and incompetents. The ad Valor-
EN- charge for filing the inventory is in
no sense a fee or compensation for the
services Of the officer. which are the
same as respects the matter in every
estate, large or small. To call it fee
is a transparent evasion. And it is not
merely an inheritance tax. or at all
analogous to an inheritance tax, for
In the first place it applies not only to
the estates of decedentS, but also to
the estates of minors and incompetents
under guardianship; and as to the es-
tates of decedents. it applies not only
to the distrbutable residue after pay
ment of debts and expenses of admin
istration, but to the whole body of the
estate, and would be collectable if the
law We're valid, from an insolvent es-
tate as we'll as from one of equal ap-
praised value and with no liabilities.
''As an attempt to levy a property
tax, the Act is in this particular inval-
id for several reasons:
"First-It violates Section ! of Arti-
Gle Mi. of the Constitution in i'm
posing an extraordinary tax upon the
property to which it applies in addition
to the equal and uniform tax to which
alone all property in the State is liable.
'Second-The subject of the Act is
not expressed in it's title, and in no
wise germane thereto. a violation of
Section "A of Article ". of the Consti-
tuition, which requires that every Act
shall embrace but one subject, which
subject shall be expressed in its title
Third-The Act requires the tax
for which it provides to be paid into
the County Treasury for county pur-
poses, and Violates Section II of Arti-
Gle XI. of the Constitution, which for
bids the Legislature to impose taxes for
county purposes"
Judge Beatty's opinion was concurred
in by the entire court 1t will have an
important effect throughout the State,
as it has been the practice of the Clerks
of the counties to collect fees from all
estates under the fee bill. In many
cases the fee in question was paid un-
der protest. In this city about $4,000
has been collected during the past two
years. Wherever possible this money
will be refunded.