The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-06
TAX CASES
ARE HEARD
FiveWereDisposed
of Yesterday
By Court.
SOME INTERESTING
FACTS DISCLOSED
Evidence Taken and Decision
Withheld-Cases Down for
Trial This Afternoon.

The Tax Appeal Court held it's second
session yesterday afternoon in the Ju-
| dietary building, utilizing the hallway
between the tax and land offices as a
five cases. all of which were taken un-
der advisement. Appearances were en-
| tered in all the cases in which appeals
had been taken.
An important fact brought out at
yesterdays session was the intention
of the court to take into consideration
the value of the leaseholds. and to di-
vide the taxes between the owner and
the lessee. This was the suggestion
made by Attorney w. O. Smith, who ap-
peared for the Tax Commission. 1t was
also decided to call each case as fast as
appellants are ready, giving twenty
four hours notice.
The first case called was that of the
Carniot estate, for which MI Schaefer
entered an appearance. The original
return was $1,000, which was increased
by the assessor to $4,000. The appeal
was made at $500 The appellant
claimed that the land had never been
assessed at more than IS, 000 and since
ing upon it. Mr. Pratt said that he
had fixed $4,000 as a proper valuation
because of the fact that property in the
vicinity had been returned by the own
erS at 81 per square foot. His valua-
ton was only $l.72 per foot, because
unimproved. The case was taken under
advisement.
The appeal of Mrs. Bickerton was
next considered N. K. OZuma, who
held her power of attorney, had re-
turned the five acres in question at $500.
which the assessor had increased to
5000 The appeal was at $500. Mr..
Ozuma stated that he knew nothing of
the value of the land and had returned
1t at the old valuation. Mr.. Minton,
real estate dealer had viewed the land
for him and on his statement he was
willing to increase this valuation to
81, 500 Mr.. Minton testified that though
the land had a sea view it was rocky
some Japanese for 800 year and
there We're no Improvements on the five
acres except a few bee hives. Mr.. Pratt
stated he had fixed the value upon the
land from the fact that E. c. Roe, own
ing the adjoining property, made re-
turn of 81 500 an acre, and J. I. Crow
ley, holding property across the street,
made a return of 81 4cO per acre. No
decision was rendered.
In the case of NJ. S. Grinbaum & Co.
a return of s124, so had been made
on the stock of goods. The amount
was increased to s1S4, $3.50, and from
this action the appeal was taken. The
petitioners claimed that the valuation
was excessive, and that the books did
not show the stock to be of such value.
This case was also taken under advise
ment
In the case of Lady Mary Graeme
valuation of $4,000 had been returned
on her Queen street property, occupied
by T H Davies & %. The assessor
increased this amount to $4,000, and
the appeal was made at $4,000. Mr..
Brown, who appeared for the appel
liant stated that In view of the unfav
orable lease of the land he did not
think 1t to be worth over 1900 and
did not believe that it would bring more
than that amount at forced sale. Da-
vies & Co, he stated. had an 1Syears'
lease upon the property at $4,000 a year,
and one of it's conditions is that the
tenant is to pay the taxes. Mr.. Smith
replied that the intrinsic value of the
land was at least s75, 900 and he saw no
reason why the Government should lose
the difference between Sac, 900 and $75,
900 because Of the unfavorable leases.
The land was worth so much and the
taxes should be paid upon it for the
full amount. If the lessee had the ben
eft of the favorable lease he should
make no objection to paying the tax.
He cited the case of the Eben Hall
property, wherein the valuation was
fixed at $4,000, and which was leased
for 81 900 a year. The owner had to
pay half of what he received for taxes.
Mr. Brown stated that the only ques-
ton before the court was the value of
the land, and If it would not bring more
than $4,000 because of this eighteen
years lease, then that was the value
to be considered. He was certain that
the property would not bring $75, 900 at
the lease 1t was easily worth that sum. L.
Mr.. Smith replied that in his opinion
there should be an equitable division in
the payment of taxes between the own
er of land and the lessee, and the latter
could not object to paying his Just pro-
portion. This he said was going to be
one of the most important questions be-
fore the court. In this case the lessee
n n RI nov
The last case heard yesterday after
noon was that of Mrs. Gray, who owned
the property adjoining that of Lady
Graeme. and which is also leased by I.
II. Davies & Co. The return was made
at 1900 and increased to $4,000. The
appeal was made at $1,000. A new lease
had been made on March Is, 1900, for
term of twenty years the first ten at
an annual rental of 5000 and the last
ten years at $1,000. In this case the
owner and not the lessee Is to pay the
taxes. The lessons. Davies & Co., also
agree to erect a brick building on the