The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-12-05
The Commissions First Hearing Will
be in Raleigh.
TO HAVE 1853 DAYS FOR TAKING EvIDENC,
The Testimony Of The Witnesses Examined
Yesterday Was Of the CoIor'ess, Harm
less Sort. No Uniform Rule
IF IlodervaI;Iatiop
of differentiation.

ness from Polk county and two or three
! from Franklin county
The defendant Corporation Commission
will begin its evidence on Tuesday, De-
cember 18th and have 1913 days, a time
equal to that taken by the railroads. in
which to offer its testimony. Three days
Oath to the 27th) for the Christmas holt
days, and the time the Legislature is in
session, are not to be counted in the time
allotted to the commission.
When the Commissions 15S days shall
have expired the railroads will have six
weeks in which to offer evidence in reply
to any new matter brought out in the
Commission evidence. Either party to
the suit is at liberty to apply to the court
for further time.
These details of the conduct of the case
were agreed upon yesterday by the attor-
news.
1t was further agreed that Standing
Master Shepherd should have the same
power and authority in the cases growing
out of the refusal of the railroads to pay
their assessment for 1900 as he has in the
cases for 1899 and also that the evidence
| taken in the 1899 suits shall be used $50
far as applicable thereto, in the 1900 suits.
and that the compliments railroads
shall be at liberty to take such other evil
dence herein as may be competent, rele
want and material at the same times and
places as the evidence in said suits of
| 1899 shall be taken.
Six witnesses were examined by the
railroads yesterday. None of them did
the railroad side Of the question any good
or the Corporation Commission side of
| it any harm. The cross examination in
every case revealed the fact that the
witnesses were simply testifying from
hearsay evidence. or were giving gen
eral impression with nothing special to
| base ii on.
| The first witness sworn was Mr.. s. B.
| Belts. of Henderson. He is quite young
npn with n footlight smile and broad eX
pause of watch chain. Having been
called out rs the star witness to set the
pace for those TO follow he was very
swearing and positive in his assertions
on the direct testimony, but as the cross
examination progressed he weakened in
positiveness of assertion until soon, Ri2
zio-like he was chipping to every ques-
lion, 81 don't remeber"
Seating himself beside Judge Shepherd
Mr.. Belts announced that he was "now
engaged in merchandising hut that for
the past three years he had been tax
lister for Henderson township and in that
capacity he had given the board of asses
sors his valuable advice.
I'm fact / was one Of the assessors. and
property was uniformly assessed by them
at two-thirds Of it's real value"
In reply to questions from Col. Hins
dale, the witness said he thought he
knew very thoroughly the property of
Vance county, and he was especially we'll
up on Henderson property, be said
Col. Hinsdale declared that this was
lust the sort of witness he'd been hunt
ing. He took M the tax list of Hender
son and asked touching some twenty in
dividual lots, asking the witness what
was the assessed value of each. He was
ready enough with an answer as to what
he considered the real value. but when
it came to assessed value he fell down.
the variation between the two sometimes
being several thousand dollars.
Then" said Col. Hinsdale, "you
didn't mean what you said when you tes-
titled that property in Vance county was
assessed uniformly at hree-fourths it's
actual value?"
The witness acknowledged that there
were few exceptions, and Col. Hinsdale
continued;
do you know Mrs j. E. Young's prop
ertv?''
81 do"
Whats it WORTH"
eff put up and sold it would bring
$4,000"
''You say you were the advisor of the
board of assessors
yes, sir and their clerk"
did you then, knowing Mrs Youngs
property was worth $4,000 advise its as
sessment at $1.OO0?"
'I-er-don't think-I did"
Then that's another variation from the
three-fourths rule. isn't it?'
Many other pieces of property were
asked about with practically the same
result, and each time the question follow
ing it was: Then that's another varia-
tion of the uniform three-fourths rule.
isn't it?"
Finally the witness denied that he
had ever said such a rule maintained in
the county. and added
81 said l thought there was that differ
ence between the real and the assessed |
value of property. 1t is not an invaria-
Bile rule. The assessors had no rule and
didn't try to make the assessed value only |
three fourths of the real value, but that's |
about what ! summed it IN to be after
the assessment was completed. | don't |
saw that they had any three-fourths
rule
Col Hinsdale: 'You say real value is |
what property would sell for at private |
sale, now isn't there a difference in the
price property will bring at private sale
and at forced cash sale?''
Mr.. Belts: Yes, l think there's diff
ference of from 80 to % per cent. Prop
erty sells higher at a private sale.
The next witness was Mr.. A. Hatchet,
of Durham. He found difference in real