The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-10-16
AFFAIRS OFYHE DISTRICT
The Auditor Reports an Old Tax
Case Settled.
The Facts ms to nm Erroneous Pay
ment on an improved Lot Causes
Much Trouble-Equity of the Mat
ter-A Committee From the Bright
wood Citizens Asxocintion Heard.

The Auditor of the District reported to
the Commissioners yesterday the final
settlement of the questions raised in the
application of Miss Martha Shelton that
the sales of her property for delinquent
taxes in 1894 and 1895 respectively, be set
aside on the ground of error. This case
is one of more than usual interest, hav-
ing been pending more than a year. and
having occupied by turns the attention of
the Senate Committee in Congress and Of
the Commissioners of the District. The
facts relating TO the matter are thus. in
part. summed up by the Auditor in his
report:
THE facts in this case are that in 1891
Mrs. Ann Smith owned in square then
numbered 80, now numbered 12O6, George
town, the fifteen feet next to the east fif-
teen feet of lot los. fronting on o Street,
between Twenty-seventh and Twenty
eighth Streets, and running back 100 feet
to Poplar Street. The o Street front was
improved by brick dwelling. November
IL, 1891. Ann Smith conveyed to Martha
A. Shelton the part of said lot contain
ing the house, and fronting fifteen feet on
o Street by depth of sixty feet, retain
ing ownership of the residue of the lot in
rear, extending back to Poplar Street, and
having also a width of fifteen feet by a
depth of sixty feet, on which there were
no improvements. By error in the tax
book of 1923 Martha A. Shelton was as
sessed for lot only, while Ann Smith was
assessed for lot and also for the improve
ments which belonged to Martha a. Shell
ton.
In November, 1892, Miss Shelton called
to pay her taxes for 1928, and was gi en-
a bill for sl410 in the name of Ann
Smith, showing an assessmen Mt upon S1S0
for lot and $500 for improvements. Know
ing the description Of the property and
the amount of the tax to be correct, She
paid the BILL attaching no Importance II
the fact that il still bore the name of
Smith The tax listed under her oSn
name for lot only, not being marked paid
said lot was sold April 10. 1894. and Jane
B. Lackey became the purchaser for tax
and costs. s4.66.
In making up the Textbook for 1884
the error shown in the book for 1929
was not perpetuated. but the ass ssme MS
were properly charged, showing Ann
Smith indebted, for 1894. on valuation
OF $3.50 for lot only, while Martha A. Shell
ton was assessed on valuation CT s1St
for lot and $500 for improvements. No
vember /, 1893 Miss Shelton again pre-
sented herself at the Assessors Office a:
a taxpayer. handing to the clerk. accord
ing to custom, her receipted bill for tn
previous year, 1923. as guide in max
ing out the bill for 1884.
The clerk took the bill which. as al
ready stated was in the name OF AMI
Smith, containing lot and improvements
and, referring to the account of AM
Smith in the book for 1885,, found he
assessed for lot only. on a valuation o
$40. Assuming, apparently without In
vestigation, that because the book TO
1894 did not agree with the bill 70
1923 that the book was wrong. in show
ing no improvements, entered from thi
bill upon the tax book, in red ink, tn
words: $500 for improvements mad
out bill accordingly in the name CT An
Smith for lot and improvements. s14.7I
and gave it to Miss Shelton, who. sup
posing ii to be correct, paid 1t. The take
for the lot and improvements. then prop
erly assessed in her own name appeariri
unpaid. her property was sold at the tax
sale Of April 9, 1885. for taxes and costs
$4,000, and James B. Lackey again becam
the purchaser.
THE taxes were assessed and paid Il
the name of Martha A. Shelton for tn
years 1895 to 1889, inclusive but in No
vember, 1899, when Miss Shelton apple
for her tax bill for 1S99-1900, she wa
given one IN the name Oh James
Lackey, and then learned that her prop
erty had been sold, and the title este
in another. She now asks, therefore tina
the sale or sales, be set aside, and tn
cloud upon her title removed at the ex
pense of the District of Columbia.
"It is contended that for her failure t
require a bill in her own name she wa
negligent and inexcusable, but / canno
see the justice of this contention for tn
reason that at the date of the transac
ton in question the system which now cb
tains of taking transfers of real estat
from the Recorders Office daily. and en-
tering all changes Immediately upon tn
books in the Assessors office. did no
prevail. ard property which had been soil
often reS1ained upon the tax records froI
one to two years thereafter in the nam
OF the former owner.
THE Attorney for the District in his let
ter herewith comedies that Miss Shelter
was perhaps excusable for the error II
1928 payment as the property had onl