The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-11-15
.|T is NOT UNIFORM
differentiation of Real Es'
state by Tax Assessors.
Witnesses Testify From Beaufort. Robson,
Cartere', BIadeD, Columbus, Green,
Brunswick, Craven and New
Hanover.
Especial to News and Observer.

Especial to News and Observer
Wilmington, n. c., Nov. 14.-The ex-
animation of witnesses was resumed to-
day. Present: Messrs. Price. Burton
and Rountree for railroads; Col. Hinsdale
for State.
Twenty witnesses were examined for
Beaufort, Robson, Carteret, Bladen, Co
lumbus, Green, Brunswick, Craven and
New Hanover counties.
Charles Harding, of Beaufort county
deputy register, testified to 2-3 valuation
| of lands: on cross examination he con-
| fined his testimony to his own township
| j. NJ Buie. of Robson county, testified
| to 2-3 valuation; on cross examination he
admitted that he did not know the value
| of one half the lands in his county. A.
E. White, of Robson county, testified to
an average differentiation of ~ to 2-3; on
cross examination he confined his testi-
mony to his own land and a few other
tracts c. P. Day. of Carteret county,
| testified to differentiation in the town
of Beaufort of an average of 1-3; he adj
mitted on cross examination want OF
uniformity and that personal property
was not valued.
S. A. Edmunds, of Robson county, tes-
titled to valuation of so to IS per cent;
| on cross examination he confined his
evidence to a few tracts of which he had
| actual knowledge S. A. L. Johnson, OF
| Bladen county, testified to valuation OF
| 80 to so per cent; on cross examination
he limited testimony to his own and
| few adjoining tracts.
n naff nd
| to 80 per cent valuation; on cross ex-
| animation he admitted that besides few
tracts which he had investigated, and a
| few in Lumberton, he had no knowledge
of any valuation.
VIM. Webb, Of Carteret county, testi-
! fed to differentiation of SO per cent; on
cross examination he confined his tcsti-
mony to Morehead township. c. E. Smith,
Columbus county, assessor for 1899, testl-
| fed to 2-3 valuation; on cross examina-
| ton he confined his testimony to his town
| ship. j. p Williamson, Columbus county,
| testified to the same effect.
j. p. Martin, Carteret county, testi-
| fed to 1-3 differentiation; on cross ex-
animation that it was the custom to
| assess lands at what they would bring at
| forced sale after full advertisement.
| "A. >.
| testified to the same effect. Geo. w.
/ Sugg, chairman board of commissioners
| of Green county, and c. A. Lassiter, reg
| lister deeds. testified to differentiation
| of 1-3; on cross examination showed a
want of uniformity in any rule of under
valuation. NJ. C. Guthrie, testified that
| he was chairman of Board of Commits
sioners of Brunswick county ten years
4 T6a,, n6 OF
| so to 70 per cent. of actual value; on
cross examination he confined his testi-
mony to parcels of land in his own town
| ship, with which he was acquainted and
said there was no uniformity in under
| assessment, but that what he stated was
| the average.
F. P. Sharp, of Brunswick county, said
| that he was assessor in so, that property
was assessed from 60 to rs per cent. in
| his township showing a want of uniform
| ity, and personal property assessed at
| true value.
H. w. Mally testified to the capital
stock and market value of Navassa Guano
| Company. w. H. Sprunt testified to the
| amount of capital stock of the Champion
| Compress Company. c. N. Williams, of
| Brunswick county, testified to 2-S valua-
4 ton, put SAID ne knew very IIle ABOUT
lands in the county and limited his testi-
mony to tracts with which he was ac-
quainted.
| ]. J. Woolfender of Craven, testified
| that lands were assessed at so per cent.
of their value and gave a number of in
| stances in which differentiation was at
| greater rate. On cross examination he
/ gave instances when lands were assessed
| nearer their value. He also testified to
3 actual sales of property at about 90
| per cent. of actual value. His testimony
showed want of uniformity in undervalua-
| ton
| H. B. lane, of Craven county, testified
| that he was assessor in SO and that in
| his township he made it a rule to assess
| at IS per cent. of actual value. On cross
examination he admitted that some of the
property was assessed at more and some
at less than this differentiation. Many
of the witnesses stated that personal
property was assessed at full value in
their counties, and none testified to the
contrary.
All of the foregoing witnesses showed
by their testimony that there was no
uniformity in the differentiation of real
estate. JHON w. HINSDALE.