The times., 1901-03-28

Affected by Issue of n Subsequent
Certidcate-A Recommendation for
Release From Tax Penalties.
Charles H. Weaver, of Weaver Bros,
1416 T Street northwest has requested
the cancellation of the tax sale of Aprii
ii, 1893. against lots i'll, 142, and l4S'
square IA. the same having been omitted
from tax certificate No. 43l6S.
The Commissioners referred the appli-
cation to the office of the Assessor, ana
+. W. w Griffin, the Assistant Assessor,
has reported that: The above reciteo
property was sold at tax sale April IA,
1899. for the taxes of 1898. to Thomas W.
Smith in the amount of 20.6i. A ceru-
ffcate issued July ]. 1899. did not report
this sale. The examiners. Wincheh and
Iesh. noted said sale on the official slip.
but it was omitted from the certificate
by the typewriter performing the service
at that time.
The deed Of conveyance was made to
Charles II. Weaver from John J.. Weaver
and David r Weaver trustees, and re-
corded November s, 1899. and was the
result of a foreclosure of a mortgage, the
property being bought in by the petition
er for his own protection.
The petitioner presents affidavits that
he became the purchaser of this proper
ty on the faith Of the certificate of July
l. 1899 and that ne had no notice of the
tax omitted therefrom and is therefore,
entitled 10 relief by the cancellation OF
the tax sale
The tax on this property for 1898 was
duly advertised in the delinquent tax list
in the spring OF 1899. previous to the sale
of April H. 1899, and as the sale to Ihom-
as ". Smith paid the said 1898 tax the
District had no further lien against the
property for that year.
The practice of enumeratng the data
OF tax sales upon the certificates was un-
der a regulation issued by the Commis-
sioners under dates, respectively OF July
a and August y, 1884,
Under the law regulating taxes and
tax sales enacted by Congress May Is,
1892. the office is only held responsible as
to the omission of q tax from the certih-
cate. and there being no tax in this IN
stance it's responsibility ceases. The
placing of the data as to tax sales on
the face of the certificates was only pS
the courtesy of the Commissioners under
the regulation above referred TO, ana not
in response TO any law upon the Sup1ect,
and any data relating to such sales that
are unavOidably left off a certlflcate does
not under the law. render the District
amenable nor delinquent in any reports
upon these certificates.
This office is clearly of the opinion
that this case does not come within the
provisions of the act Of May -, 1892, en-
tax sales in the District of Columbia,
and is therefore. submitted with an ad-
verse recommendation.
E c. Davis the Collector of Taxes, in
passing upon the application, states that
the advertisement and sale IN the case
appear TO have been regular and in COM
pliance with ths law, He IS OF the opin-
ion that q tax certificate issued July i,
1899. by the Assessor omittinG any refer
ence to this sale surely would not oper-
ate to invalidate the sale OF the property
D. a
months before. The Collector concurs- in
the report of the Assistant Assessor.
A A Hoehling jr., attorney for Charles
c. Halpine. has sent communication 10
the Commissioners asking for his clients
relief from the interest charge of 10 per
cent and other penalties in the tax sales
of 1899 and 1890. against sublot 20, square
I4O.- In his letter Mr. Hoehling alleges
that at the time OF the sales the property
was assessed to George Barrie, when rec
ords of the Recorder of Deeds show that
ii was owned by his client.
z. W W. Griffin, the Assistant Asses
scr. in reporting upon the matter at the
request of the Commissioners, says: "A
search of the records develops the fact
that the contention of Mr.. Hoehling is
correct in this respect the property be-
ing conveyed 10 said Halpine by deed re-
ferrcd on the records. occasioned by the
clerk in charge of such matters overlook
ing the deed on the transfer book. Said
clerk is not now an emplOye of this Office.
The claim that the advertisement and
sale was made in the wrong name does
not invalidate the sale Of the property.
The question is what does the District
sell, most aSSuredly not the name, but the
property. and in this case what property?
Tho east II feet front of sublot 20, square
40. Whether the Office is called on for
bills or a certificate of taxes il is posi-
lively Imperative that the lot and square
should be definitely described. The name
does not figure only as to ownership. and
IN advertising this property as the east
Il feet front Of lot 20, "a description suf-
fcient to identify it. the act of Febru-
airy D 1893, relating to taxes and tax
sales in the District of Columbia was
fully carried out and complied with.
Special attention is directed 10 the
fact that tax for the year 1894. while as
sessed in the nar1c of George Barrie was
paid by check Of Charles c. Halpine; in
addition thHt 1aNes on this property are
unpaid for 1855, 1895. and 1897 In the name
Of George Barrie.
The facts herein stated do not warrant
the action requested by the applicant. and
the case must receive an adverse recon-
mendation."
f. G. Davis the Collector Of Taxes, yes
terday returned the application to the
Commissioners with his approval of the
above report.
The Commissioners yesterday replied to
the request of John Burke, through his
attorney, c. c. James. to be relieved from
waterman assessment against part of
lot ? square 459. They inform him that
the assessment In question, under date Of
October /, 1895, was for the fun front of
lot 2 for the main laid I'm | Street, be-
tween Seventh and Eighth Streets south
west. The Commissioners inform him
further that the assessment against lot l
for main laid in Seventh Street between
il and ] Streets, was a distinct and sep
arate assessment against said lot. and
does not operate 70 affect the assessment
for main on the ! Street front against
said lot ?.