Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-04-13
MISTAKE OF A CLERK
FAILS TO CROSS A T IN DISTRICT
RECORDS.
Change in Name Of Cotton, Which Re-
suited in a Sale for
Taxes.

Office to cross "t'' ten years ago made a
name appear on the tax records of the Dis
trict Cotton" when 1t should have been
Cotton" The property was subsequently
sold under this erroneous title. and also
CHANGED to be wrongly described in the ad-
vertisement. These facts have now brought
about an application from Justin Morrill,
Chamberlin, attorney for James 8. Cotton.
requesting the remission of interest on ar
rears of taxes for eighteen years, this pc
Rod including eight years previous to the
fatal omission Of the distinguishing feature
of the ct" The property in question Is
part of lot IL, square 743, between M and
N streets and New Jersey avenue and LIST
street southeast.
The application was referred to Mr.. H.
H Darneille, the assessor. who has re-
turned the papers with an interesting re-
port covering the points at issue. This
property" he says, was transferred to
VIM. H Cotton by deed recorded May %,
ending June 80, 1891. the property was as
sessed in the name of VIM. H. Cotton. In
writing the ledger for the tax year ending
June 80 1892, the first It in the word Cot
pear to be Cotton This mistake was con-
tinued on the ledgers for the years 1893
and 1884. For the years 1895 and 1896,
however the name was properly written
Noltou anu uAlHS lLc ldlteI year \loouJ
the property was transferred by will Of
w. II. Cotton to James S. Cotton in whose
name it is still assessed Taxes are unpaid
for the years 1882 to 1898, inclusive, and
1901.
Grounds for Remission.
Mr.. Chamberlin bases his request for re-
mission of interest upon three grounds
First that the property was improperly de-
scribed in advertisements for sale for de-
1inuuapt tay baf fho ~,
has been carried and advertised as a sub
lot, when it is an original lot. Third, that
through an erroneous spelling of his
fathers name Mr.. Cotton was informed that
there was nothing due on the property.
AS to his first contention as to the errone-
Gus advertisement, the property was not
definitely described for the years 1882 to
1887, inclusive. being advertised as part of
Sublot IL. For the years 1888 and 1889 the
description was erroneous as to measure
ments, and for the year 1895 1t was ad-
vertised as square north Of TAB instead of
square 743 For 1896 and following years
1t was correctly described.
LAS to Mr. Chamberlin's contention that
this is not part of sublot, this position Is
untenable for the reason that the original
lot II in square 743 had 50-foot front
about midway of the square on LIST street,
whereas a regrant Of the square made by
Charles Carroll of Duddington, in 1872
placed the property in question. that is,
sublot II. on M street. with frontage of
100 feet. in which position and manner it
is still carried on the records.
Mr.. Cotton's Statement.
''Mr. Cotton makes affidavit that he call
ed at the assessors office and requested
bills for this property during his fathers
Illness which was. Of course, prior to June
u, 1896 the date of his death: that he
again called later. after the death of his
father and on both occasions was informed
that there were taxes in arrears. He
does not specify the dates Of his visits
If his request for bills was made during the
years 1892 1893 or 1894 it is probable that
he was informed that there was no proper
the property was in those years assessed
to Cotton"
Mr.. Darneille adds that If requests. were
made after 1895. however. this statement
could not have ben repeated, for the prop
erty was then in the name Of Cotton. He
continues
IF the property had been properly ad-
vertised for sale for the taxes in question,
1 could not recommend that this request
be granted. because. although Mr.. Cotton
may have been misinformed in 1892, 1893
or 1894. he certainly knew that taxes must
be paid on real property and that his father
owned this lot, 1t being in fact their resi-
dence: and he must have known there was
some mistake which he should have inves-
tigated. However, according to the de-
ciSion Of the attorney In the Goddard case,
we will have to remit the interest after
dates of attempted sales on the taxes for
those years for which the property was de-
fectively advertised
The Commissioners have not yet acted
upon the matter but will probably approve
the report of the assessor.