Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1898-08-31
FIRST TAX CASE TRIED
In Justice Habberfeld's Court Yester.
day Morning.

INFORMER BIRD WAS ASKED A
FEW QUESTIONS. AND \ MOTION
TO DISMISS WAS MADE AND TAX
EN- UNDER ADvISEMENT-SO
LEGAL PHASES OF THE sITUA-
TION-PUBLIC OPINION.
Another of the tax cases OF Informer
Bird, Lawyer McCulley e, al, came
up yesterday morning in Justice Hab-
erfield's court. The defendant was
Mrs. Alice Birch, who was represent
ed by Capt. B. B. Dovener. Mr. Me-
Culley appearing for the prosecution.
Col. Arnelt was not present
When the case was called at two
o'clock, Capt. Dovener made a motion
to require security for costs. and under
this motion asked Informer NJ w.
Bird few question touching upon his
citizenship. Mr. Bird was sworn and
testified in answer to Capt. Dovener's
questions concerning his movements,
that he came to Wheeling April 18th
frcm Pittsburg; that he was in Pitts
burg six months, Cleveland seven
months, Pittsburg one month, Buffalo
four months, Erie, Pa, six months,
Rochester, n. Y, three months.
Capt Dovener remarked to witness
that ne was quite bird of passage"
and then made a motion to dismiss on
the ground that the court had no jur-
isdic.ion. Capt. Dovener made brief
argument to show tha, the proper mode
Of procedure would be by indictment
by the grand jury, and he challenged
the prosecution to show single line
in the code which might be construed
as giving jurisdiction to justice CT
the peace. Mr.. McCulley replied.
Then Justice Haberfield took the mo-
ton under consideration and continued
the case until September 18th.
There has been considerable in
quiry concerning the legal phase OF the
matter. There can be no question that
public opinion, while it does not sus-
tain citizens in Withholding informa-
ton from the assessors, condemns the
method of procedure adopted by Bird,
McCulley, ct al. If there is anything
wrong, according to the popular view
Of the matter, the remedy should De
applied by a proper officer, aud not by
a private individual for personal gain.
Sec SO Of Chap 30 of the Code con-
cludes with this sentence-"And II any
person fail to give true list OF all
money loaned which should be as
sessed. he shall, in addition, forfeit
five per cent on such sum not so listed,
which shall go to the informer.
This is the section under which In
former Bird and his attorneys are pro-
ceeding. The next section in the same
chapter (29) points out the method by
which the assessor is authorized to get
Just such information as would have
made the present proceedings impossi-
BILE 1t says:
go. If any person fail to furnish
proper list or if the list furnished be-
in the opinion of the assessor, incCm-
plete or erroneous in any respect, the
assessor shall proceed to list the prop
erty and assess its value, or to supply
the omission and correct the errors,
upon the best information he can OBJ
tain, and for that purpose the assessor
NAV CALL UPON~ANY OFFICER OF
THE STATE~COUNTYO OR DISTRICT
FOR SUCH PROPER INFORMATION
as it may be in his power to give"
etc
1t will be seen that while this is
not specified as a duty of the as
SCISSOR, except when in his judgment
the lists are incorrect, it points out
very simple method of ascertaining
the truth. It's simplicity is evident,
when the ease with which the in
former gets the information is con-
trasted with the apparent Indifference
of the assessor.
IN support of their position that the
grand jury is the proper tribunal to
examine into the alleged irregularities,
attorneys for the defendants point TO
Sec 80 Of Chap. 80 of the Code, which
says:
ut shall be the duty Of every as
SCISSOR to furnish the prosecuting at
tornev for the county. list of every
violation of the revenue laws COM
mitted by any person other than him
self. showing the nature and character
of each violation. And it shall be the
duty Of such attorney to deliver such
list to the foreman of the grand jury,
who shall treat it as having been espe-
cially delivered in charge to the grand
jury" etc.
Sec. of Chap. sc also has a bearing
on the matter 1t reads: Although
a law may allow an informer or per-
son prosecuting to have part of fine,
the whole thereof shall go to the State
for the support of the free
schools, unless the name Of
such informer or prosecutor be
endorsed or written at the foot
of the presentment at the time 4 is
made, or of the indictment before it
is presented to the grand jury" etc.