Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1899-12-20
Supreme Court Decisions

has been decided by the supreme
court adversely to the ex-assessor,
G. J. Spongberg. 1t is held it was
his duty to collect $3.50 poll tax
after the second Monday of Decem-
Der, and that the judgment against
Inn for so cents each on $50 polls
collected between the second Mon
day in December and the first Mon
day in January must stand.
The opinion of the court, which
is by Justice Quarles, follows:
The agreed facts in the case arc,
briefly, as follows: The appellant
was assessor and tax collector for
Oneida county during the years Of
1897 and 1898. That between the
second Monday in December, 1897,
and the first Monday in January,
1893, appellant, as such collector,
collected G76 poll taxes and receipt
ed therefor at the rate of So each.
That 45o of said 50 receipts were
delivered to said collector by the
county auditor of said county be-
tween said two dates. Appellant
did not make any settlement with
said auditor for IS poll taxes col
lected on the second Monday of De
cember, 1897, nor did he return to
said auditor any So poll tax receipts
on that day, nor did he demand or
receive from said auditor any So. so
poll tax receipts prior to the first
Monday in January, 1898. Appel
liant collected the said polls with
the belief that poll taxes did not be-
come delinquent, or the so cents
penalty attach thereto until after
the first Monday in January. On
the Goth day Of July, 1898, the
board of commissioners of Oneida
county in regular session, made an
order to the effect that the appellant
be charged with and held account
able for the additional so cents on
each Of said poll taxes, aggregat-
ing the sum of 1898. From this
order Of the board of county COM
missioners the appellant appealed to
the district court which affirmed
said order of the board of county
commissioners, and from the judg-
ment Of the district court affirming
said order appellant appeals to this
court.
There is only one question that
we need to consider in this case and
that is the amount Of a poll tax
under the statutes Of this state after
the sccond Monday in December,
of each year.
The provisions of this act are
plain, free from ambiguity and need
no construction, and said act was
continued in force by the provisions
of the constitution Said act fixes
the duties of the assessor and col
leetor. He should have collected
on each of the G76 polls S35 in
stead of So. lie should have set
tied with tie auditor on the second
Monday of December and returned
ahe SO receipts and demanded SO. SO
receipts. But it is contended on
behalf of the appellant that section
1889 Revised Statutes, as amended
by act of March 8, 1895 (Session
laws 1895, p. 1l9), makes call I'M
paid taxes delinquent on the first
Monday in January of each year
following the tax levy, and that the
appellant believed that said section
1923 Revised Statutes as amended
by act of March 8, 1895, applied to
poll taxes. The eaid section 1923
as it stood originally, and as amend
ed by said amendatory act does not
relate to poll taxes but only applies
to property taxes. Mistake nor
ignorance of appellant as to the pro
visions of the law, nor his con
struction thereof, nor his belief in
the matter excuses him from per-
forming his duties. The judgment
of the district court affirming the
order of the board of county com
missioners was correct, and the
same is affirmed.
CANYON COUNTY CAsR.