The times., 1901-06-20

| Ellis Hughes acting for Thomas
Hughes, some time ago requested permis-
sion to pay half the tax for 1898 against
sub-lots 149 and $50, square 6l9, without
interest and penalties. The application
was referred TO the Tax Department, and
H. H. Darneille, the Assessor. reported
under the date of May IS, as follows:
Certificate No. S901S dated October 26,
! 1893, was issued to Real Estate Title
Insurance Company, whereon the second
half tax for 1885 in amount of S2357 was
omitted.
This omission from the certificate is
not applicable to the act of May l3. 1892,
relating to tax sales and taxes. as the
property did not change hands on the
faith of said certificate, but a certificate
issued under the seal of the office should
certainly afford at least sufficient protec-
tion to the petitioner as TO Offset penal
ties and interest from the date of the
certificate of October 26 1895, and / so
recommend"
Not being satisfied with this disposition
of the matter MIR. Hughes again address
ed the Commissioners claiming that his
client should have the relief sought.
There having been an error in our tax
certificate" he writes, ''and we having re-
lied upon that tax certificate, we feel that
we should be entitled to the full benefit
of any remittance provided for under
the act approved February 10. 1899, and
which became imperative July /, of the
same year. Had the certificate been cor
rectly issued, we should have been clearly
within the provisions of the statute, and
we feel that we should not be deprived of
its benefits, because of an error for which
the authorities alone are responsible"
Mr. Hughes second letter was also re-
n 10 r
Assessor has now reported upon 1t as fol-
lows:
Under date of June Z, 1901. Mr.. Ellis
Hughes files a communication in which
he states that the order "a. O. 1858, o.
.. 1lSi9S, June 6, 1900, allows payment to
be made with interest and penalties to
the date of issuance of the certificate,
and invites attention to the fact that sub
Sequent to the issue of said certificates
there was statute allowing payment at
per cent, and owing to said erroneous
certificate he was deprived of its bene-
fits. II submitted that the contention
of Mr.. Hughes is in the line Of equity and
that had the certlncate reported the tax
he could have aVailed himelf of the
statute Of February 10, 1893. allowing pay
ment of arrears at per cent interest per
annum.
the tax for 1898. against sub-lots 149 and
49, square 6lg, with interest at 6 per cent
per annum to October 26, 1888, and l so
recommend.
1t is expected that the Commissioners
will approve the Assessors report. and
that Mr.. Hughes will be informed ac-
cordingly.
Rev. r. II. McKim, D. D., of 1921 K
Street northwest, recently requested the
Commissioners to cancel the tax for half
of the year 1890 and all of 1891 against
sub-lot /, square 1874. In reporting upon
the matter at the request of the Com
missoners, II. II. Darneille, the Assessor,
says:
'The property referred 10 above is the
west 20 feet of sub-lot l and the east
feet of sub-lot 2, square 1874, which in 1880
and 1891 were assessed to William T.
Hamilton, and the second half tax 1890
in amount of s66 II. and all of tax 1891
in the amount of Sl33.42 as shown by the
records is unpaid.
"On June g, 1890. tax certificate was is
sued to r. II. Goldsborough. on the west
20 feet on X Street of sub-lot I, square
1S4 whereon the second half tax 1890 was |
omitted. On same date and to same party. |
certificate was issued on the east feet
on X Street of sub-lot 2, square 1884, and
the second half tax 1880 was omitted BY
deed recorded June l6. 1890 said property |
was conveyed by William r Hamilton To |
Ra ndolph II. McKim, in whose name II |
is now assessed.
The petitioner states he purchased on !
faith of above recited certificates as is |