The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-02-07

These actual sales, together with
those in the list which we will submit,
show that the assessors not only over
value the property to an extraordinary
degree, but that the board Of relief have
not reduced the assessments under APP
peal to anything like the just valuation.
New Haven lawyers admit that an
appeal to the superior court has not
furnished practical relief. The testimo-
ny of experts, upon which the courts
have made their decisions have been so
contradictory and perplexing that the
court was entirely unable to grant re-
lief, In the first eleven cases that We're
tried. With such result other appli-
cants were discouraged, and eighty
four cases were withdrawn.
In the twelfth case that was tried
that of the appeal of DR.. e. j. Toof, a
different result was reached, for the
reason that while the testimony of the
experts was as contradictory as in the
other cases, there had been some actu-
al sales of property in the vicinity of
the property Of DIR. Toof, and the court
was able in this one case to grant relief.
In the case of lot No. 10 Orange street,
the assessors valuation was $6,210. The
board of relief reduced the assessment
to about $4,000, but the court reduced it
to $500.
The lot on George street was assessed
at $1,750. The board of relief made no
reduction, but the court reduced it to
5000.
The house and lot No. 208 Winthrop
avenue was assessed at s66,OS3. The
hood ro1iof rodI1ood II to xd2 2e0 b11t
the court reduced it to s25, 000
1t will be borne in mind that the tes-
timony of the experts was as contradic
tory and perplexing upon these proper
ties as it has been in the eleven previ-
Gus cases, where no relief was granted;
but that in this case 1t was owing to
the evidence of twenty-one witnesses,
who testified to the present true and
Just value of the property as shown in
actual cash sales of property in the vi
entity The city produced expert wit
nesses in this case, as it had in the pre-
vious cases, in support of the extrava-
giant assessments, but their testimony
did not weigh against the evidence of
actual sales.
Now. it is recognized fact in New
Haven that the board of relief do not
furnish needed relief and owing to the
contradictory evidence, the superior
court has so far furnished relief in but
one case out of the one hundred and
thirty-four cases that were appealed to
It. and that this relief was due to the
proof of other sales in the vicinity.
Furthermore, that the expenses of try
ing this case in the superior court to the
owner will be about as much as his tax
was reduced by the decision of the
court, and in addition to that, the cor
poration counsel has appealed to the
supreme court, so that even If the decl-
sion is sustained, the taxpayer VIII
still be under far greater expense than
the reduction of his tax will amount to-
It is evident that the superior court
does not furnish any practicable RELIEF, |
and this fact was so evident to tax
payers that only a small number have |
appealed to the superior court, out OF |
the thousands who felt injured by the
generalization. may add that the
court docket is so crowded, by reason
of the assessment appeals, that the reg