New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-08-12
nocKEFELLER ASSESSMENT.
.,,ncr BARNARD APPROVES REFEREES
REPORT.
,,,vs REDUCED. AS THEY WERE ORIGINALLY
-,xrn NALICIoUsLY BY ONE ASSESSOR

,r. REDUCED. AS THEY WERE ORIGINALLY
.,xrn uA1Ic1oUsLY BY ONE ASSESSOR
lnY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRrBuSE.l
ro,vnkeepsie, N. Y, Aug. 11.-Judge Bar
49, a.c,sion in the case Of William Rockefel-
-. ~ Tarrytown. against the assessors OF that
lace fled to-day. fully sustains the report OK
p.,eree Hoysradt both in his hnding that inc
easement should be reduced from SZ,oOo,VOV 10
,als $50, ard In finding that one Of the asses
-. was actuated by malice This decision APP
.a,rs TO meet the general approval Of lawyers
md real estate men here. and was expected.
The decision In full follows:
aupreue Court-The People ex rel William Rock
.,sler against David Haight and others. Assess
Tn. relator owns real estate In the town OF
,,nunt Pleasant, Westchester County. His prop
-,v In 1897 was assessed In that town. and ne oo-
..,ned a writ Of certiorari under the tax laws to
,.ew the assessment and claims that his lands
.ssre overvalued. and that the valuation was I'M
,uaI and unjust, compared with the valuation
- other property in the town on the same roll
rns referee TO whom the question was commit
"a has found that the reator was nonresident
o,,he town. He has also found that the roll was not
,enared In the manner and form prescribed by
,.w and is illegal. No fact is found showing the
mlorslty but the counsel for the Assessors admits
49, u,ecal,ty and wishes the whole tax stricken
from the roll
,hink no case Is made for such step, and that
Tho Assessors have power to assent thereto.
r, the tax Is void because the Assessors had no
r,r.d,ction TO make this particular tax in the way
!, mas made no legal collection Of the tax can be
"oae For the purpose Of this writ. deem the
tax legal and valid
There IS a finding that the valuations Of land on
,ns roll are unequal and that the same injuriously
snect the assessment No fact is found to
enable a court to correct an inequality. The evil
dance shows great inequality The tax per acre
m other lands in the town Is put on valuation OF
can ner acre while the REALTORS Is valued at $SWO
mar acre but the finding is too general to base a
Correction upon and the roll will stand far as 1t
is affected by this objection.
The sole question remaining Is as 10 the aceual
value OF the property.
Tn. nroperty is made up Of twelve pieces. con-
calming in all six hundred and thirty acres about.
While the pieces assessed In parcels they were
IN bought by the relator one parcel and are
used By him residence. The land was IN
,ss7 owned by the successor in title Of William II.
Aspinwall II was full and costly residence FOR
Mr. Aspinwan In his lifetime. and for his family
,,,.r his death There two fully equipped
s,one mansions on 1t. There were a barn and stable
and other appliances which are usual IN resi-
dence Of a very wealthy man.
The relator bought this land with all the build
Wit
and all the property used about the large tract OF
,.ra for $4,000 The new purchaser tore down
~. two mansions; the barn burned down, and thus
~. a. reduced 10 the land itself taxable prop
~ A large part Of the land was and still is.
IN an entirely wild state; rough rocky, hiy and
uarshy with rot much land used for cultivation
The evidence does not disclose the value of this
land separate from 'he ouu"eS a' 'iio 'ie Vi INC
REALTORS purchase.
r,a relator built on the premises new house. a
rsw harm an electric plant TO light the house. and
in fact everything new which makes up country
mansion for a person of large wealth.
when completed It assessed at $l22 900 In 1895.
The next year IT was raised to slo2 4s2 80 to indi
cate a valuation OF 40 per cent of the real value.
The NEXT year Che In question: this assess
nent was increased two and one-haf times to
roach the real value Of s2,5OW0, altered on
grievance day to s2.lS.55s G2.aaos1D
was the inquiry as to the value improperly re-
stricted'
The reator was a witness He gave evidence
tending to show that the house cost $4,000 and
the barn $4,000. He not acquainted with the
cost of the other structures, and he was asked
by the assessors counsel, WAS the worth what 1t
eo.tv' After some discussion the counsel stated
as follows: II don't ask what 1t is worth.
He don't know the cost. ask MIN II IL Is
worth this amount.
The question in this form was properly rejected.
II the witness did not know the cost he could not
say II It increased the value OF the real estate as
much as II cost. The reator was preciuded py
the respondents objection from testfyng as TO the
value OF the property as 1t stood. out ne canho'
raise the point now
Proof was offered by the respondents as to the
value Of the plumbing in the house with an oner
10 prove the value Of the different separate por-
tons OF the structures. This was rejected. frooi
had been given tending 10 show the cost OF the
completed separate buildings by the respondent ana
the value OF the property as an entirety. IL was
fairly within the province Of the referee TO limit
the INQUIRY At best the evidence was not OF con-
trolling Importance unless the value Of the struct
ure was shown by the evidence. and no case goes
further than to hold that the cost Is TO be taken
into account In fixing the value This value is
sworn 10 by many witnesses. and minute inquiry
as 10 the cost or value Of the several component
parts Of each structure was properly arrested
What was the value Of the property in July.
1897?
Upon this question: apart from the relator him.
self, there were produced four witnesses by him
who establish the market value In the usual way
taken In courts Of Justice.
Each witness acquainted with the value OF
such places, and each had large experience in the
business Ct buying and selling such iahos ior
others as brokers'
The highest value placed upon II was $33s'SS1 d.
The others we're a few thousands less.
There were called by the respondents upon the
question OF value two witnesses, who were also
qualified TO value lands from experience acquired
IN a similar way They also were brokers TO buy
and sell for others.
One OF these witnesses places the value OF the
land at the amount Of the assessment To reach
this result ne placed the value Of N.s3SOcO on the
residence and upon the barn property he placed
value OF $4,000 The great discrepancy between
the REALTORS witnesses and this witness is on these
two pieces. The contract price for the mansion
md " he
about SIS 0oo Work was done outside OF the con-
tract. The amount Of this does not appear. but
there is no evidence 10 sustain finding that the
entire house cost any considerable sum over The
contract price The same view can be taken or