The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-09

clearly drawn. Ii is held that Mrs
Turner was primarily liable for the
debt, and Mr.. Fishel only secondarny,
after all means 10 secure payment had
been exhausted. The decision of the
trial court is reversed. and the case
RENTED for a new trial
TAX APPEAL DECISION.
The Supreme Court also decided an
appeal from the tax appeal court, as
sessing certain property of the Car
Mot estate at $4,000 In the opinion
written by Justice Perry it is held:
The property involved in this appeal
consists of a piece of land situate on the
corner of King and River streets, ana
extending to Hotel street. in this city.
the frontage on King street being 20 feet
and on River street 81 feet. The otner
dimensions do not appear in evidence.
The area is SIP square feet. The lot
was on January l, 1901, the date of the
assessment, vacant and entirely unini-
proved. The value returned by the tax
payer was 5000 that placed by the as
SCISSOR $1,000, and that fixed by the Tax
Appeal Court $500. From that decision
the assessor appeals to this court.
A portion eff the land in question, with
a frontage OF 20 feet on King street and
being about one-third the whole area, is
subject to a lease executed in 1890, the
rent reserved being $50 month. The re-
mainder of the land is under lease eX-
ecuted in 1888 and having Is years to run
at a rental of $50 per month. The portion
hrst mentioned, testified to by one wit
ness as being the most valuable of the
whole, was. prior to the present lease,
rented at $12 per month. e The new rate,
$50 per month, was the highest bid at
was of the opinion that the whole land,
unincumbered, was of the value of $4,000
but held that only the interest of the
Carniot estate was taxable in this case
and that the interest was,
der the eight year rental rule, worth
S624O, and as the return had been amend
ed to $500, sustained the appeal of the
estate. CThe record does not otherwise
show that the return was so amended,
but we assume the fact TO be as stated
In the decision appealed from)
The return in this case is of the prop
erty as whole, without mention or
leases. Following the decision in the
case entitled I'm re Assessment of Taxes
Emily X Mehrten, ante, p. = the value
to be now ascertained is that of the
whole property, including both the les
sees and the lessons interests. The only
evidence adduced by the assessor in sup
port of the valuation of $4,000 is that an
was returned and accepted $3.50 per
square foot, and that another lot malxai
of King street, not on a corner was re-
turned and accepted at $500 per squa. e
foot. The assessment in the case at bar
was at the rate of $1.72 per square foot
In this instance. we think that the rent
which the land yields or is capable OF
yielding is a safer guide as to its value
than the returns and assessments of
property. There is no reason
for believing that the true, present vaIue
of the oue-third of the land referred TO
above is any greater than indicated by
the rent, $50 per month, actually receiv-
ed for that rate was fixed a public auc-
ton very recently. AT this rate, the rem
tai value of the whole, assuming it all
to he well situated and equally desm-
able in other respects. would be $50 per
month. The rent received being 500 per
month. to apply the eight year rental
'ule to the whole property would be mal.-
festly unfair and unjust Under all the
circumstances, we fix the valuation AT
10 OOO
& WILDER,
For the Assessor.
CECIL BROWN,
For the Taxpayer