Tombstone epitaph., 1901-12-15

| 10 per cent or the iDvoice rice. Casi
 value under our statute is the value O
 which a creditor would take the prop
 erty in payment Of . just debt sot
 from c solvent debtor. A better d. fl
 milton would be, what the propert, | would bring at s fair public ssle. { creditor might not care to take c par
 ticulsr Kind Of property st all. Com.
 plsint will be sustained when the val
 nation is 60 grossly disprsportiona,t
 as to make it fraudulent. The ques
 tion is not alone ~hether the propert,
 assessed at whst 1t is worth. but i
 is assessed at the same rate ss othe
 property of The same clsss. Plainuf
 in 10 way 10 blame, but the fault il
 with the agents oi the county, and
 the remedy is with the voters and DO,
 with the court.
 Mir. Eugish closed Tor defendant.
 He said probably il i. true that Board
 of Supervisors have not in the pact
 done their duty, and that may De the
 reason why the voters at the last cleo.
 ton elected . new Board. The court
 should disregard irrelevant matters in
 the complaint. Ae evidence that the
 Beard sc,ed in good faith they re- duced their proposed valuation $5Oe. . OO0. Plaintiff failed to return h'te.n patented mines belonging to the Low ell d Arizona. h assessing these mines the Bosri reduced the proposed valuation of S469, 900 to S54. .OO9 which does not indicate the Board acted cspriciously and arbitrarily. The complaint alleges that it sss tbe custom Of Boards, notwithstanding the statute, to assess mines as land s, $5. OO per acre. Because other Board. violsted the law, they complain that this Board did not do the same. Be lore e plsintif can join the collec- tiou ol 6 tax on the ground that the assessment Is excessive, it must be alleged ths. the property was li-tei by the owner ., i,s full cash value. In this case the mines were returned sr $5.o0 per acre. The fact that several tbou-sDd mining claims in Cochis- county were not assessed was bscsu.e most Of them were worthless. What hs. the Bosrd of Equsliz .tisu Of Co., shise county to do with the Board. in the ether couniies' Mere excessive unless it furnishes conclu. eivs presumption of fraud, . court will not enioin ihe collection of the tax. The court csnno. conclusiveiy pre- sume fraud iron, the fact tba, the valuation Of the hoi.ting works wa. raised from s44 .64l to $5s,OOO. Mir. EDglish contended that no tender had been made. The money offered, four teen thousand odd dollars, was offered l @e sho soAee NucHuiuk MI tlo taXtr | 'n the property Of plaintiff, and no, l- the taxes conceded 10 be due. Counsel submitted the demurrer 6, 30.
 At the calling Of the case of the | Copper Queen vs. Cochise Co. this . ID Judge Dsvis stated that argument had 'een very full clear and satisfactory o the court. In the citation of su- horiiies, consel had shown s gree 'f industry worthy of the importance 'f the cause. For the purposes of ,hs demurrer, defendants admit ed all Of the facts in the complaint Tnich were we'll pleaded. He cnm. nented a. length uIo1 the suthUri.ie- .uo;ed iu the PRJsPEcTJR's rsporr rom day to day. There are psris o he mplsint he said which the court eems eurplu age. and when it come the presentation of proofs he will robsbly SO hold. The main conlen ion Of the county is that fraud V a. not ileged in the complaint in c proper ,anner. Commenting upon that art of the cODp plsint alleging fraud, , ne court asked: Admitting thos. lings to be true, is not the plaintiff ; ntitled 10 relieff' If the bo.rd set. poa it- resentment. its caprice and rejudice, with intent to wrong. de- aud and orpres., it is guilty of fraud. , ne Board failed to cause the assessor, so the complaint, to aid 10 f ie assessment roll several thous.uds
 unps'en,sd mines of great Value in { s county. thus conspiring to place n Ie whole burden of taxation on prop n y Of this class upon patented mines n the Board fails to exercise Its Iudg- i. ent. its acts, like other wrongs, are k bject ts the law of correctioo. n. |,
 T ..