The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1902-04-15
OTHER AUDITORS
ARE HEARD FROM
An Injunction Is Asked Pre-
venting c. & p. Company
From Paving Taxes on
Original Distribution.
CFrom II Stan Correspondent, :,

USrom "A STAFF Correspondent.)
Columbus, April 1.-THE final hear
ing or oral arguments In the case Of
Ohio on relation to Conrad G. Fernsell
auditor of Tuscarawas county. against
the auditors of the counties of Columbl-
ana, Stark. Summit, Portage, Cuya-
hoga, Jefferson, Belmont, Carroll and
Harrison, before Master Commissioner
Charles G. Connell of Lisbon. Colum-
bian6 county, took place Friday after
noon in the Office of the attorney gen.
eral, at the state house. Fernsell
wants another distribution of the val
uation Of rolling stock of the Cleve.
land and Pittsburg railroad company,
alleging that under the distribution
made by the board of appraisers, COM
posed of the auditors of the counties
through which the lines of the com.
pany pass. Tuscarawas will receive
taxes on only valuation of $31,262
whereas, IL the distribution were made
on q basis where there is no distribu-
ton between branch and main line
counties, it would collect taxes on
$1O5,560 of the valuation of the Cleve-
land and Pittsburg rolling stock.
ASKS AN INJUNCTION.
A motion accompanying the petition
asks for the injunction preventing the
company from paying taxes on the
distribution made pending the determi-
nation of the questions raised by the
suit. The arguments were as to what
the finding of fact of the commissioriJ
should be in his report to the supreme
court. The evidence in the case was
taken at two previous hearings, the
first being held at Pittsburg, and the
other at Cleveland. Master Commits
sioner Connell will at once formulate
his finding of fact for submission in
the supreme court. If he finds that the
action OF the board was legal, the court
will probably order that the appraise-
ment shall stand as made by the board.
The legal representatives of the au-
ditors who are involved in the suit
who were present at the hearing were
v. M: Mowls, assistant prosecutor of
Tuscarawas county; Jason H. Brookes,
prosecutor Of Columbiana county;
Robert Thompson, prosecutor Of Car
roll county; w. J. Beckley, auditor OF
Portage county; A. G. Lewis. prose-
cutor of Jefferson county; r. M. Wan
amaker, ex-prosecutor of Summit
county. and Solicitor Kizer. of Cuyaho.
ga county. Three counties were not
represented. Attorney General Sheets
was also present to act In conjunction
with Attorney Mowls as counsel for
Auditor Fernsell. The attorney gen.
eral and Messrs. Mowls, Thompson and
Lewis attacked the action Of the board
and contended that another appraise-
ment should be made.
IN LINE WITH STATUTES.
Attorneys Brookes, Beckley. Wan
amaker and Kizer sought to show that
the work performed by the board was
in full consonance with the statutes.
A time limit was placed on the argu-
ments, certain period being allotted
each side. While the auditors of JEFF
ferson and Carroll counties are made
defendants In the action brought by
Mr.. Fernsell, they. In their answers,
allege that there Is fraud in the records
of the boards proceedings, Mr..
Brookes, in his very masculine defense
of the board, showed how utterly in
consistent this legation was on the
part of these auditors. They endor.e
what Auditor Fernsells petition con-
tains. and at the same time render
spect to the claim of fraud, for the rea-
son that no such allegation is made
in the former petition. Mr.. Brookes
laid stress on the point that Mr.. Farms
ell did not claim fraud-he simply
contended that the apportionment re-
turned by the board had not been made
on the proper basis. Mr.. Mowls open
ed the hearing, He said that the rec
ord purporting to give true report
of the boards proceedings was not a
correct one. 1t did not set forth the
precise action taken. He said an ap-
portlonment was not in accordance
with law.
MADE CHARGE OF FRAUD.
He was followed by Prosecutor
Thompson, of. Carroll who insisted
that there was fraud in the record He
said something was incorporated in
the motion which did not belong there
and should not have been there. This
would deceive both the auditors and