The sun., 1900-12-16
RENTS W. ". ASTOR'S TAX.
PJRsO>tfTr NOT ASSg<sABIE Bs.
tuSS or Won -RIStDENtg.
nrsdie, Nsv,ln Must rsy Personal Tss
mere for iroe. on the Presumption That
IIes SIN Gcsident Astor wss Assessed
at ~ 900 600. martin at s2OO, ,OOG.

st r3, 900 600. martin at s2OO. OOG.
William Waldorf Astor obtained decision
from Justice AudrcNa Yesterday In tho Su-
pfcmc Court that the 1gN Commissioners
illegally taxed hls personally Tor the year
isip and that ho was then = resid'n of Lon
don. The decision IN effect relieves Mr.
A-tor from further tax On his personally
while he IL resident abroad. For tho pur-
pose of taxation tho tommiss oners had
fNcd the value Of his p"rsonllty IN this county
at t2,b'l,pp for the year 1893.
MIR Astor. who had moved to London In
1895 paid tn" personal property taxes i'm
posed against him for that year and down
to 1890 without protesting IN litigation. when
the tax of 1899 was assessed against him he
applied TO the Tax Commissioners to knock
or the tax altogether On allegations that he
had ceased in 1876 to be- "A resident. The
tax Of 1899 vas imposed before he became
n subject Of the Queen Of Great Britain and
Ireland lie was examined by the Com
missoncrs and showed that he had given up
his residence here IN 1888 Tie had bought
residence Ia London. lie SAID he had not
come back to this country since 1895 oYcept
In order To TESTIFY before the Commissioners.
lie said h. had no intention Of residing in
this country again.
Tho commissioners did not take any evil
dence 10 r"fute hi| statements, but they held
that the CIRCUMSTANCES had not changed
since 1879 and that no paid his taxes up TO
lSvO.
/ am ~ tho opinion" says Justice An
drews, that the application Of Mr.. Astor
should be granted bN the lax Commissioners.
Tho evidence given b. him upon his examl-
nation before the Tax Commissioners was
not CoutradICtrd IN any respect whatever,
and 10 far "a | can see from the papers sub
mltted there as 40 rru son 10 believe or to sus-
poet that tls testimony given by him was
not true The provision OF tho tax laws
IL not conclusive as to the residence Of am
person. IL merely provides that when u
person has acquired residence IN a tax dis
dence shall bc resumed to continue Tor the
purpose Of taxation until hr shall have ac-
OUr"d another residence 1t this State or
shlll h've removed from this state.
This presumption, however, which the
statute declares snail he made in Il case like
that of the rnatpr can he overcome by evil
den"o that tho rerson IN question has removed
from tho state lht. evidence WAS given
tradioted. aud al tho facts testified to by him
tended to prove the truth Of the statement
that he had actually and bona tide chang ell
his residence IRON the city Of New York 70
that the prayer Of the petitioner must be
granted. and tho assessment for personal
lIoperty OF the reator for the year 1909 must
Bradley Martin failed ye,.erday In similar
proceedings which he brought before Justice
Andrews to cancel il- r@sossr ut far 1899
on ners naity valued at 100000. II ap-
Feared C. at he las resided abroad a large
part of each year since iss2 He has paid
taxes every year since then without any
protest oNC"I' In 1896, down to 1909. He
rurt"ndrd That be j. a r'-idgl.t of London
HIS course of l.fa with regarf To his partial
does not appear to have q anged since lsS2
md the comm miS~i0Ncr5 we're right in deCid-
nr that the presumption OF law that he re-
NAMED u resident of this city applied to his