Daily new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1897-1906, 1901-10-17

Failure to Return Property for Taxa
ton is Qnashed- Other Cases Passed
upon by Judge Mason During the
Last Day or so.
The case OF Roy II. White against
the Monongahela Textile company,
was brought up wednesday morning,
the court everything the demur to the
bill of particulars argued by the de-
fendents cousel.
In the case Of Nnce against NQce,
the hearing of which was delayed by
the raising of technical point by
Geo. G. Baker attorney for the de-
fendents. Mr.. Baker objecting to the
courts permitting the plaintiffs attpr-
ney +. G. Corbin TO place his sigma
ture to the declaration filed in the
case (the document having been filed
without signature) without giving the
defendent thirty days to file an ans
weH to 9 declaration, which Mr.. Baker
insisted by means OF the adding OF the
signature, twas an amended declaration
and thus, under the law the defend
enus were en6luled 10 the thirty days
claimed; was decided adversely to Mr..
baker 81 the court. The court was
OF the opinion that the signature to
the declaration neither added to nor
took away from the substance con-
tanned in that document but simply
identified the paper in its relation to
the particular case. aThe court
would always said Judge Mason, ssin
such case as this, stay the proceed
ing until the necessary signature
should have been added
In the case Of w. Z. Bond who was
indicted by The Grand Jury for un-
lawfully and willfully refusing to
properly list personal property as al
legea ia that document, was dismissed
by order of the court, the same being
declared by the court to be defective.
Fhe defect according to the court,
lay in the neglect Of the prosecuting
attorney TO show in the Indictment,
that the party Indicted was furnished
with proper list or blank by the
assessor, such as the law states shall
be provided through the Office Of the
Auditor Of the State which list or
blank the statute requires shall be
furnished each tax payer and the fact
/ OF the delivery OF the same by the as
SCISSOR to the tax payer made part Of
| the indictment by the Grand Jury in
accordance with the language and
! purpose of the statute governing the
Cas-. TIL csaIt stated further vnas
as TO the matver Of tne quit or inno-
cence of the party for whom an in
dictment was sought he could not
say anything. The court did feel
| certain however, that there was a
| very strong and just suspicion that
personal taxes are evaded by the own
ers of personal property who fail to
make proper returns, and that such
cases ought to be prosecuted. AS a
! matter ef course, the court had no
other choice in this case than to dis
miss for the reason stated.
| The question as to the filing Of the
pleas in the Hartigan- Raymond case
was called up again by Attorney Good
win, who insisted that all the pleas in
tiDu So-,s should be tle1 before the
close Of this term OF court, as agreed
upon By the attorneys upon both sides
Of the case. Judge Berkshire, for the
other side, desired to enter a plea Of
not guilty and to ask for thirty days
| In which TO file additional pleas.
| Mr.. Goodwin with considerable vehe-
mence, insisted that the agreement
Should be complied with. Judge
Berkshire retorted that the matter
was simply question between
| Brother Goodwin and the Statute
That the Statute permitted his client
/ thirty days in which to file additional
pleas, and that III f1gnJing the statute
brother Goodwin was fooling with the
/ business end OF a hornet, and that he
lGaao RerlsnireN had known the nus.
j mess end OF hornet to break up
| bigger gatherings thsn the members
of this Bar might get together. The
court stated that while the defendants
lad asked thirty days In which to file
| further pleadings, that the court
| would refuse TO grant such leave under
| the circumstances. but that such
refusal now. would not operate TO
| prevent the acceptance OF any add.
tional pleas that should be filed at the
end OF that time.
In the case Of Frank r. Raymond
| against John u. Price. the case was
dismissed upon agreement as filed by
| the parties interested.
GEORGE G. Baker rendered his resig-
| NATION m 1F.e court, OF his commits
isisner>hip 10 favor Of w. j. White.
The et,ntt decided TO accept Mr.,
Bake fas ignation. and ordered that
the rs,ass> In the matter show that
the change was made solely because
+, al Mr. itaker'> desire in the matter,
| nanieis :-to return the commissioners
ship ~ ar 7, bite Mo Eola the same
precious e going lnto the army dur
| ing me late VA with Snain
Hl-saN tne alNNsee ease Ct Bessie Z.
Stephens against Walter Stephens
was ,,eeitieti. Il Gcosee 81 divorce
fret, bess AUD board sas granted.
u o.
anH Cpslii,atas a-atisse J. j. t5rafii and
..f No. $500 - FS1st~d