The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-16
Attorney Duvall Submits an 0pin-
ion as TO Circuses.
The Cowl Tax observation-disclosures
Diseinim Responsibility for Dam
nEcs to Property of Thomas w.
steuart - Request for Rebate of
Taxes on Property of Kirby Estate.

suance OF license for such an exhibition
at the above location.
The question is says the Attorney
whether this is a circus, which, under
the police regulations. would require the
signatures of property owners. The
18th clause of the 2lst section of the
act of the late Legislative Assembly.
passed August %. 1871, defines a circus
thus: Every building, tent, space, area.
where feats of horsemanship or aerobatic
sports or theatrical performances per-
tanning to or being part thereof are ex-
hibited shall be regarded as a circus
The dog and pony show says the At
tcrney, lis not an exhibition of horse
Inanship or aerobatic sports or theatrical
performances; it is an exhibition OF trained
animals, and l am of the opinion that it
does not come within the definition Of
circus under the license law"
The Commissioners. replying to an
enquiry from the present owner, Benja-
min G. Cowl. as to the status of Fart
Of lot l, square 1912, have sent to Mr..
Cowl the approved report of the Col
lector of Taxes in reference to the mat
ter. The premises were sold by the
District for taxes. and the validity of
al the present moment were the ques-
items at issue MIR. Cowl's original
letter of enquiry follows:
On June u. 1900. your office issued
a tax certificate to Messrs. stone &
Fairfax on real estate sub-Iot %. Iuare
1912, in which it was certified that tie
taxes were paid to June 80, 1890. Sub
ssquently. on July 20, your office issued
TO the District Title Insurance Company
a a ea-fff foot sT,,
which stated See sale, 1852. on lot l.
You are respectfully requested to ex-
plain the last above quoted matter,
which is very indefinite, and in no way
agrees with the statement. Paid to
June 80, $780, contained in the tax GER
tifcate OF June T..
A later letter from Mr. Cowl discovers
him 10 be the owner of the property to
which he refers.
The matter was referred TO the AS
SCISSOR, who in turn transmitted it to
ahe Collector of Taxes, endorsed with
the notation which follows:
The within communication from Mr..
Benjamin G. Cowl states that on June u.
1900. tax certificate was issued on sub
lot p, square 1012, which certified the
taxes paid to June 80. 1900. On July 80.
1900. another certificate was issued on
the same property which recited See
5ubstantiated by the record. Sub-lot 90
vas formerly part OF original lot l, and
was not reported on the first certificate
ts reason of the memorandum on the
sale book as follows: Erroneous. see
ledger, June 4, 1853: too much ground. |
r. P D. The initials r. P. D." mean |
Robert P. Dodge. then Assessor.
In issuing the second certificate. il I
was deemed inexpedient to report the sale |
in the absence OF verification by your Of /
fee, and the matter is now submitted for |
such action as may settle the question 1
whether the el.try referred to operated to 4
declare the sale void
The finding Of the Collector of Taxes
which received the approval of the AS I
SCISSOR and the Commissioners, is as fol- |
lows:
Il beg to state that the tax sale record .
shows that part of lot l, square 1912, as
sessed in the name of ]. B. Todd trustee, /
was sold September 6. 1882, to John w Star /
for the taxes due for the year ended (
June 80, 1881. We find opposite said en-
try Of sale in the record book of sales
the following entry, made by R. p. Dodge,
the Assessor OF the District: Erroneous:
see ledger, June 4. 1883; too much ground
charged While the records do not show
that this sale was ever declared void or
that deed has been issued by the Dis
Lrict, 1t appears that the above notation
by the then Assessor. r. P. lodge. was
his usual way of certifying on the books
that sale was erroneous etc. And the in
ference is that the sale was declared void,
IN which case record on the Assessors
book should stand
In response TO a letter from Thomas
W. Steuart,, complaining of damage done
to his property. 1921 II Street northeast.
by reason of a ditch adjacent TO the
house, the Commissioners advise Mr..
steuart that the ditch to which he
refers is on private property, and is not
the result OF any work being conducted
on the part of the District. The Com
missioners disclaim any responsibility
Tor any damage that may arise from the
conditions which exist. It is suggested I
10 Mr. Steuart that the trouble could I
be obviated by filling the low ground
and laying sidewalk, and the Commits
sioneTs agree to fayorably consider a / {
formal request for the sidewalk from !
The AUDITING property owners. if accom- {
panied by permission for the District to / !
DO the necessary filling on the private
property.
On the application of C. F. wollard. at
orney for the estate OF Samuel Kirby. for
he refund of general taxes for the year
deceased, which the appellant claimed was
Il that time exempt from taxation under ]
he exemption law then in existence re-
-arding property used for manufacturing
purposes, the Attorney for the District has
endered an opinion adverse to the APP J
llicauon for refund OF taxes paid The ,
pnion Of the Attorney is here given:
have duly considered the application
4 G. F. Wollard, attorney for the estate ,
Il Samuel Kirby, for the refund OF general !
axes for the year 1874 against parts OF :
OTIS 3 and 10, square s0S. which. with re- !
'orts thereon by the Assessor and Col
eetor, you referred TO me for opinion {
1t appears that Samuel Kirby in 1874
sed the said parts of said lots for mann .
aeturing furniture; and that on August ,
6. 1873, he paid the taxes for 1874. The
lain for the refund of said taxes is based :
pom the following provisions OF the act
I the late Legislative Assembly of the {
district Of Columbia, enacted July 2s.
s73. viz: ,
" That sll property, real and personal.
'hich may hereafter be actually employed
7ithin the limits Of the District Of CO. l
lmbia for manufacturing purposes shall I
e exempt from all general taxes for a
eriod OF ten years from the date of the
CT going into effect; provided, that the {
aiue OF the property so employed for a
manufacturing purposes shall not be less 4
han $4,000 !
THE Supreme Court of the Unjted !
states, in 1879. held that said act Of !
he Legislative Assembly vas repcaIca | !,
y act of Congress Of June 20, 1874 levy 6
ng taxes upon all real estate in the Dis !
rict except that belonging to the Uni !
ed States and TO the District of Co | !
lmbia. and that used for educational /