The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-12-12
WITH The RAILROADS
Judge Simonton Decides the
Same Old Way.
He Daclines to Allow the Corporation Commits
sion to Amend Its Answer in the
Taxation Cases.

!
Judge Simonton yesterday render
ed another opinion in the railroad tax
alton cases and as usual the decision
is in favor of the railroads.
He declines to- allow the Corporation
Commission to amend its answer so
as to raise the question of the under
valuation of railroad property.
This decision he bases on the
ground that the question is either
raised in the original answer or it
| is not.
/ If it is raised no amendment is nec-
essary, and an amendment cannot be
made simply to improve the style OF
the answer.
| If the question is not raised, then
to so amend as to raise it would be
to change the complexion Of the case,
/ prolong its trial, and should not be
allowed.
No opinion is expressed by Judge
| Simonton in this opinion as to wheth-
Ell or not the issue is raised.
Sometime ago, in the case of the
| Southern Railway VS.. the Corporation
! Commission, attorneys for the COM
mission made a motion before Judge
| Simonton for leave to so amend their
answer in the railroad taxation cases
as to admit the taking of evidence IN
regard to the value OF railroad prop
erty in North Carolina Yesterday
| the ruling of Judge Simonton on tins
motion was received here.
The amendment was asked on the
ground that the railroads declare that
| it is ''admitted that the Corporation
! Commission has assessed the property
| of the complainant at its true value
whereas attorneys for the Commission
contend that mo such admission was
made or intended to be made" There
fore to avoid any uncertainty on TINS
point the Commission asked to be al
lowed to amend its answer.
Judge Simonton declines to grant
this prayer, and in course of his opln-
ion he says:
THE answers in these cases were pre-
pared by counsel of the highest standing
at the bar. not only for learning, but
accuracy 1t would be difficult to believe
that they have made use of language not
conveying the meaning they intended. And
they assert that the answer does express
their intention If this appears in the
|
sion for any amendment. There is no
need for the expression of the intention
in language of classic purity. 1t is enough
if the language used can bear the idea
intended.
"An amendment at this stage of the
case is too grave matter to be used
simply to improve the style Of the an-'
swer If the language used in the answer.
does not express the purpose for which
it was used, so that the opposite party
and the court cannot so interpret 1t, and
il the amendment gives new complex
ion 10 the case. it could not be allowed.
The compliments have completed their
testimony in chief. If the proposed
| amendment give new complexion to the
cause, if it raise issues not logically or
properly raised in the answer. the COM
plainants would have the right to ask
leave to introduce evidence looking to
this new complexion of the issue. and
the cause which should be speedily de-
c.ded may be prolonged indefinitely.
There are nine cases involved in this
litigation. The bill of complaint in each
case charges that the defendants have
assessed the property of railroads at
it's full value. and that in this they have
Disseminated against the railroads, mas
much as by universal rule, all property
ether than railroad property in North
Carolina, is assessed for taxation greatly
below its actual value in money.
although expressed in varying Ian
Guage, this is the gravamen of each blll.
In the original answers this charge is
categorically denied. The amendments
proposed are eight in number. These nro-
POSED amendments simply deny the allie
cations in detail and aver that prac-
tice to the contrary exists in every re-
spect.
"The motion to amend as prayed for
is refused.
Also in course of dis opinion Judge
Simonton reviews the history of the
taxation cases and thus excuses his
disregard of the affdavits submitted
on the trial at Asheville:
1.-THE cases were first heard upon the
return to q rule to show cause why an
injunction should not issue. An immense
number of ex parte affidavits were sub
mitted at this hearing. An examination
of the affidavits convinced the court that
no satisfactory conclusion could be drawn
from them. Nothing is more common in
the trial of causes than variance be-
tween the evidence of the came witness
| on S8duludIlOu anu CIUoS-SAdulino
and his statements in an AFFIDAVIT. And
this without any reflection upon the mo-
tives or character of the witness. Aft
davits are generally prepared by per-
son other than the affiant. The scribe
uses expressions which he thinks set out
the meaning of the affiant The latter
is apt to sign after cursory reading or
hearing and when afterward his attention
is directed to the words used in the
I affidavit, he discovers that he has wholly
misunderstood the words used for him. Mt
any rate, reading the affidavits submitted
in these cases, the necessity fo~ cross
examination of the atlantis became mani
fest. And the causes were referred 70 a
Master. After that the answers were
filed. Replication being in, the testimony
| was taken on behalf of complainant and
the time for taking it is about to end
At the date of this opinion it has euled.
Then the motion now under consideration
is made"