The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-04-12
AN ANSWER
IS FILED
Taxgrafting Cases Again
Heard From.
MD. AARTER ESTATE
Canton Lawyers Filed an An
swer In the Richiand
County Courts--An-
other Case.

William A. Lynch, Hester & Kirch.
baum, Bell & Brinkerhoff and Cum.
mings & Mcbride, attorneys for the
defendant in the case of Charles Brum-
field, treasurer of Richland county, VS..
George Brinkerhoff, administrator of
the estate of Michael ID. Harter de-
! ceased, have filed an extended answer
In common pleas court, says the Mans
field News.
The answer alleges that the defend
ant is still insisting that the plaintiff
has no right to prosecute this action
No. 1910, nor the court to hear II dur
ing the pendency of a case between
the same parties now pending on ap-
peal in the supreme court of the United
States involving the same subject mat
ter and during the existence Of the
temporary injunction granted in the
| said cause in the circuit court of the
United States for the northern district
CT Ohio in the eastern division, pro-
tests, and will ever continue to protest
against the further prosecution Of this
final determination of the cause be-
tween the parties in the supreme court
of the United States.
The plaintiff then proceeds to enum-
crate several grounds of defense
First, that the sums charged against
the estate of Michael ID. Harter upon
the personal tax duplicate do not ap-
pear against the defendant upon the
tax lists or tax duplicate of the county
as originally made up. Second, moth
ing is charged against the defendant
on the tax duplicates as administrator
Third, that the decedent michael ID
Harter died on February %, 1896, and
that prior to his death he made full
and complete statement of all personal
property, moneys, etc, subject to tax
alton to the proper Official. Fourth
that Michael ID. Harter at the time of
his death was the owner of a number
of shares of capital stock of various
corporations of the par value of 1852.
$50 and all of these were shares of
Ohio corporations and taxed in the
name of the corporations SO that 1t
was not otherwise subject to taxation.
Fifth, that in the year 1898 prior TO
making returns Of his personal prop
erty Michael ID. Harter, now deceased
submitted the question of his tax re-
turns, all data, facts and information
touching the question of taxable as
sets to counsel learned in the law and
made his returns upon the advice and
under direction of said counsel.
Wherefore the defendant having full
ly answered prays that the acts of the
auditor in placing the taxes and pen
alties set out in the petition upon the
personal property duplicate of Rich.
land county against him may be held
tC be illegal and void; that the statutes
under which said auditor pretended to
act may be declared to be in conflict
with and in contravention of the four.
teenth amendment to the constitution
CT the United States and unconstitu-
tional and void; that the decedent may
be declared to have been a non-resi-
dent Of Ohio during the years 1894 and
1895. That the defendant may be held
to have no assets belonging to the es-
tate subject to taxation in Ohio; that
on the final hearing of the case the
treasurer may be perpetually enjoined
from collecting said taxes or any por.
tion thereof
An answer has also been filed by the
attorneys for defense in the case of
Charles Brumfield, treasurer of Rich
land county VS.. The Aultman-Taylo
company, No. 1909. Practically the
same defense is made in this case as re-
cited above. The two cases are what
are generally known as the famous
"Taxgrafting Cases.