Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-02-14
SHEEP CASE AFFIRMED.
Supreme Court Decision in the Case Of A. A.
- Taylor vs. A. NJ. Robertson. .
DUTIES OF ASSESSORS ARE DEFINED.


The Supreme court handed down AZ
opinion today In the case OF A. A. Tay
lor. plaintiff and respondent, Va A. NJ
Robertson. defendant and appellant
affirming the judgment of the lower
court.
Robertson. ms assessor for Crane
county In March, 1897, assessed n lnrg,
band OF sheep belonging to Taylor. the
amount alleged to be due as taxes foi
1897. being se7.12is. Taylor refused tc
pay, when the assessor levied upon Is.
head of sheep, selling the same to John
Wilcox for $i1f.l2. Taylor then brought
suit against Robertson to recover the
sum OF s456 damages, alleging that he
was unlnwfully dispossessed of
the sheep. The case was
tried before Judge Jacob
johnson, OF the Seventh judicial dis
trict last August, who rendered a de-
cision In favor Of the plaintiff Taylor,
and holding that Robertson had no au-
thority for assessing the sheep on the
18th OF February, 1897. or at any time
prior to the first Monday In March,
1897.
The plaintiffs contention was that
the sheep We're not assessable in
Grand county: that he lived In Utah
county and had paid taxes on the sheep
the previous year. certificate of as
sessment showed that they had been
assessed In Utah county for 1897. The
defendant, however, claimed he found
the sheep In Grand county In July,
1897. and that for tho purpose OF avoid
ing the payment of the taxes Taylor
caused the sheep to be moved out OF
Grand county.
Justice Miner, who delivered the
opinion today. finds the abstract de-
fective and does not contain material
and important testimony given upon
the trial, and further adds that many
OF the facts had to be CLEANED from re-
citals and testimony contained In n
poorly executed typewriter transcript.
AS mistakes OF this nature have arisen
In many other cases, the court takes
occasion to point out that such errors
may be avoided I'm the future In the
preparation Of abstracts.
'"Thc abstract" says the court,
SHOULD contain such parts of the rec
ord and testimony, under the rules, as
VIII fairly present the case for review
in this court; anything less renders 1t
more troublesome and Injurious than
II no abstract were filed"
The court finds that section 10 and
II of chapter 1879 OF the Session Laws
of 1895 are In conflict, and for both 10
remain In force would create confusion
and uncertainty In assessment, as well
AZ In the rights of persons, resulting
therefrom.
On the question us TO whether or not
the assessor had jurisdiction under the
statute to assess property on the 18th
OF February and collect the tax by a
sale of $50 head Of sheep, the court
says:
II the assessor had iurisdlctiou. and
exercised his honest judgment In u.s.
sessing and collecting the tax, II he
duty. and confined him self within the
limits of the statute; II his motives
were honest, he should not he held
civilly liable, although he may have
erred IN his Judgment. Discretion, when
vested In an officer, however. does not
mean absolute or arbitrary powe.'. The
discretion must be exercised In
reasonable manner, and not malicious
ly. wantonly and arbitrarily to the
wrong and injury OF another
This IL held to be the rule nppli-
cable to public officers who IRE bound
10 exercise their deliberate judgment
In the discharge of their official duties,
ana IL applicable to all inferior magls-
trates and others called to the per-
tormance OF functions in
their nature and character
quasi judicial. while acting within
The Jurisdiction and the legal scope of
their powers as fixed by law"
The court further finds that the evil
dent object Of the several provisions
ef section 80, page 4a5. of the Revenue
Laws is to render assessment of
aorses. cattle. sheep, ETC.. uniform
and the collection OF the tax certain
and Mt the same time allow the coun-
~ where the stock was wlntered or
'ummered its proportion OF the tax
assessed upon the owner In the county
Where he resides.
The court holds that the assessment
md sale were Illegal and that Robert
ION had no Jurisdiction under the
ltatute to assess and sell the sheep UNI
Ter his assessment OF February is, 1897.
,annot be upheld.
The act of going into n flock of $500
lheep and selecting i5g head and selling
Them Unfortunately Mt 75 cents a
head Is held TO have been improper and
As the question OF the legality or
.onstitutionallty of the statute had not
been raised by either party, the court
foes not pass upon It.
There being no error found in the
indings, decree or judgment the court
iiiirms the Judgment appealed from.
Chief Justice Zane and Justice Bartch
concur,