The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-06


The lot subject a made January 1885, for
fifteen years of 5000 1t be
disputed that the lot unincmbered by the lease would
worth $25O0O The value of the landlords interest would be
$1,000 if estimated by the eight year rule Civ. l. Sec $50
This the returned by the payer and fixed by the
Tax Appeal Court To apply that rule in this case, however
would be manifesty unfair unjust the language of
the statute and therefore should be done See the
of the Bishop Estate Consent given before th
Tax Appeal Court of $15000 but that
nevertheless adhered the eight year rule We need not mako
estimate of the value of the property subject the lease In
opinion the statute made the assessment by the
conclusive and subject appeal the outstanding
lease is concerned
This much like that of Bishop Estate, SUPRA in
that return made of the property owned in fee simple
and mention made of the outstanding lease 1t differs
from that in that further time given for furnishing
information the lease and such information fur
nhed and far appears the knew nothing about
it. the Honolulu Iron Works. the lessee gave ats
return list of the leases held by it and among them the follow
ing: "Aakea and Queen SITS. (E & j. Mehrtens) 5000"
But this in the of another party, the description
very br eff and the names given e. & J.
Mehrtens while the return in the present Is Mr Emily
K Mehrtens We presume from this that the
knew that the in the of the Honolulu
Iron Works that attempted be set up that he had
that in mind when assessing the property In question:
could hold that he did know it. the payer could
that up in the present proceeding under the
The (Sec S21 provides that the interest of every
shall be separately assessed and that (Sec 500 leases
mortgages, DC, property shall be forth
One who makes return sole without mention of
leases &c. complain if he assessed accordingly the
not knowing of interests of lessees &C. On appeal in
such the rental might be shown bearing the question
of the value of the property but the lease could be
show that the making the return had less interest than
that returned
assessment by the Tax Appeal Court is set
aside and the of $4,000 by the allowed
stand.
Robertson oe Wilder for the assessor
Holmes Stanley for the taxpayer.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF
OCTOBER TERM 1901
IN RE TAX ASSESSMENT, ESTATE OF JAMES ROB
INSON
APPEAL FROM TAX APPEAL CouRr HoNoLuLU
SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 49, DECIDED NOVEMBER 81 1901
FREAR, CT, GA1BRArrH AND PERRY ~
Tax Appeal Court reversed
and higher valuation placed property
THE COURT BY PERRY j.
This appeal by the from the of che Tax
Appeal Court fixing the valuation for purposes taxation for
the 1901 of certain land and improvements
Pakaka Wharf Property $99900 This property was re
turned by the taxpayer $4,000 and by present
assessors predecessor in Office $270O0O In Appeal
Court also in this Court the present assessor claims vp
alton OF not more than $685. that being the
per square foot for the total of $4,000 square feet
The land in question is situated the maai Queen
street. between Fort and Nuuanu Streets and
water of the hrbor portion, that facing Queen street.
occupied with stores and Offices for purposes the largo
in the used for the storage lumber and the re
naming portion wharf The latter of sufficient length
accommodate vessel 225 feet long The under
leases for short terms and the lumber yard subject
tor fifteen years with and onehaIf years of
expired The wharf proper leased the collecting
wharfage therefrom from time time is used The
income from the property for the year OIL being
S5,34O from rents and 2,731 from wharfage.
The evidence adduced is and unsatisfactory The
assessors estimate of value OF $500 per square foot unsup
ported by facts sufficiently There evidence
from Ehchyg find ho1r,