The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-11-07

tor Hofuann- during the tine OF IN
construction Of said building. furnish
ed and erected al the steel snd cas-
iron work used In the construcsio,
and erection OF said building
The Western Iron Works has full,
performed its part OF the contract
The amount Of the contract price 10
the materials and labor furnished 4
SIS AS. Victor Hoffman, has paid OF
account thereof only the sun OF SIS.
$500. leaving SIN due and OWNS
and unpaid the sum Of sl7.43so0
NieuhaEs Brothers Company hzvs
fled mechanics lien against the Ho
nolufu Brewing and Mating Company
q corporation. (ownerl, and Victor
HOFFMAN,. (originAl contracrorl. and
the land and premises OF the brewlns
company. for an unpaid balance ot
81. 400. for building materials contract
ed for and furnished for the construc-
/ ton OF the Honolulu Brewery.
Notice Of lien claim has also been
fIed by Victor Hoffman, against the
Honolulu Brewing and Mating Com
pany
Victor Hoffman, claims a lien and
privileges, to secure the payment of
the sum of SIS .2eS.l1 for labor per
formed and material furnished in the
construction of buildings erected and
Improvements made upon and belong
ing to the real estate and premises
situate in Honolulu.
The property upon which the labor
was performed and the material sup
piled is described as situate upon
Queen street. in Honolulu. and the
owner or reputed owner as being the
Honolulu Brewing and Mating Com
pany.
The contract was entered into on
October IA. 1899. bv and between Vic
tor Hoffman, and the Honolulu Brew
ing and Mating Company.
Balance due the contractor is claim
ed as s13.20S IL. including interest.
An itemized statement OF material
furnished and labor supplied is at
tached TO the claim on file.
Tax Controversy Submitted.
Frank Halstead. plaintiff. and J. W.
Pratt, tax assessor. defendant. being
parties to a question of difference
which might be the subject OF civil
action In the Circuit Court. have
agreed upon statement of facts ~
on which the controversy depends.
On June l. 1901. plaintiff received
from the Hawaiian Trust Company.
administrator of the estate of Robert
Halstead, deceased. $20.691.17, as his
distributive share in the estate. That
this share was not taxable under the
4f - - O.
sion Laws of 1892 as amended by Act
81 of the Session Laws of 1896
That on May %. 1901. the admins
traitor, on behalf OF plaintiff. paid to
the Collector of Internal Revenue
under the provisions of Section 20 of
Chapter 44s. Revised Statutes OF the
United States. a tax CT seventy-five
cents on each 800 OF said distributive
share. amounting to sl55.10
That on July %. 1901, in accordance
with the provisions of Act 90 of the
Session Laws of 1901. plaintiff made
return of the income received by him
for the year preceding July 1, 1901.
and filed the same in the Office of the
defendant. in which said return plain
tiff set out such distributive share
as an item in Schedule "a" Gross In
reme. under the head of Money and
the Value of Other Personal Property
Acquired by Gift or Inheritance" al
so in Schedule "B." Deductions and
Exemptions. under the head of BE
quests and Inheritances Otherwise
Taxed as Such"
That on September 30. 1901. plain
tiff received from defendant notice
Of assessment under the provisions of
said Act disallowing the deduction
set out in plaintiffs return under said
item of Requests and Inheritanees
Otherwise Taxed as Such"
The points in the controversy are
as follows:
Plaintiff claims that under the prov
isions of Section 4 of Act 20 of the
Session Laws of 1901, said distribu
tive share is exempt as part of the
income received by him during the
period aforesaid on the ground that
It Is an inheritance otherwise taxed
as such. within the meaning of the
law
Defendant claims that such dis
tributive share received by plaintiff
Is subject to taxation under the terms
Of Act 90 Session Laws OF 1901.
An adjudication is requested upon |
the following question:
Is the said d'stributive share re-
ceived bv plaintiff from the estate OF !
Robert Halstead. deceased. subject to |
taxation nnder the terms of Act 20. |
Session Laws of 1902
Plaintiff is represented by Hatch &
Silliman
Miscellaneous Notes.
The appeal of B. R. Jones. alias |
Rice. from conviction in the District |
Court OF an assault on an officer of |
The police department. with fine of |
s25 and costs, was withdrawn in |
Judge Humphreys court yesterday on |
motion of Attorney F. NJ Brooks.
Fine and costs were paid.
r. c. HenshaiI. alias Hodge, who |
figured in the same trouble as Rice. |
vas called three times. also his sure
y. J. W Allen. There was no re-
sponse In either case and the appel /
ants bond was declared forfeited.
All PAX, charged with assault with |
/ dangerous weapon. yesterday with /
rev his plea OF not guilty and enter |
ID a plea OF guilty He was SEN
.enced to paw a fine OF 800 and costs
n Judge Humphreys court