The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1903-01-16

is personal matter and has nothing to
dowith the case
UP SPOKE CAREY.
You must not think that because you
We're once Mayor of this city you have
special privileges said Mr. Carey.
"You were counsel in that case and
you know all about it," remarked Mr..
Hoos, shooting whitening glance at the
corporation attorney.
The ex-Mayor called Real Estate Dea-
Ter James f. Cannon as witness.
sWhat do you consider a fair value
for the entire property" asked Commits
sioner Black.
"About $25,000.,
what is the value of vacant lot on
Newark avenue" questioned Mr.. Hoos.
Il know of no sales of lots on the ave-
nue. recently" was the reply.
'sWhat is Newark avenue lot worth p
sit might reach $4,000"
What is the furniture store building
worth?" asked Mr. Carey.
"A new building today would cost
$4,000, but. of course, you wouldn't
have building forty years old"
"What is the value of the Gregory
street lot?' asked Mr.. Carey.
I'D like to know myself interrupted
Mr. Hoos
1T isn't worth more than 81 ,s00,'. an
swered Mr.. GaLnon. 1T was assessed at
$1,000"
The hearing was declared finished at
this point, and Mr.. Hoos arose with the
remark quoted above.
The officials belonging to the admins
tration circle who heard the caustic
speech WINGED but had no reply to make
Bernard Lavino, Jr, who appeals for
reduction ON an assessment of $1,000
levied on Nos. 2S9 to 81 Arlington ave-
nue., had another interesting experience
with the board. He asked that $500 be
chopped from the assessments
He said that the houses brought $500
rent each per year. They needed great
deal of repairing. however, he said, and
the owner had been unable to get single
offer for them in number if years. The
assessment was confirmed.
MOT JUST OR FAIR"
81 don't think this is just and fair"
said Mr.. Lavine.
I'VE can't substitute our judgment in
place of the local Tax Boards remark
ed Mr.. Black.
Other cases were disposed of as fol-
lows:-
Estate of William Gaul, lot on Payonia
avenue, assessed at $500; reduced to
81, 100 by consent of the city.
George Ellington, two story and base
ment frame building, at Nos. 80, 9011a, 80,
81 Kearny avenue, assessed at 81 800
each, reduced to S1.700 each.
John Damato, Nos. 374-371 Seventh
street, assessed at $4,S00; appeal dis
missed; appellant didn't appear
Christian Home for Orphan Children,
Hudson Boulevard and Magnolia avenue,
assessed at Sc, 1900; assessment cancelled
by consent of the city, the property being
used for charitable purposes.
Estate Of William Currie. property in
Greenville, assessed at $7,775, reduced
to s.. .475. This reduction was made by
the State Board last year, but the new
assessment was not carried over on the
books of the local board
BIG REDUCTION.
The assessment of $35,000 levied on
Raudnitz & Pollitz's four story brick fac
tory building at Nos. 701-707 Grand
street, Hoboken, was reduced to S27. 900
on the recommendation of Assessor Will
liam j. Dynan, of that city.
The Hoboken Land and Improvement
Company appealed for a reduction of
$500 each in assessments of $500 on
Nos. 1,116, Ills, 1922, 1,124 and 1,126
Park avenue, Hoboken.
Mr.. Zang, who owns No. 1,120 Park
avenue, house exactly like all the others
in the row, was assessed S3,S00, and
was allowed a $500 reduction by the
Board of Appeals. The request of the
land company for a similar reduction was
denied by the Hobokeu Commissioners,
consequently the appeal to the State
Board to eaualize the assessment.
Counsellor E. A. S. Lewis was pre-
pared to fight the case vigorously in he
half Of the company but he didn't have
to because the State Board signifed its
willingness to treat the company exactly
as the local Appeals board treated Mr..
Zang.
SYMPATHETIC MAJOR.
II presume the Appeals Commission
er,s reduced the assessment on the house
because it belongs to an individual and
refused to reduce the others because
the property was owned by a corpora
tion," said Major Lentz. This board
was created to correct matters of this
kind
Frank Stevens, the well-known real es-
tate dealer was on hand to proceed with
a number of appeals which he had fled
in the cases of assessments levied on
property on Montgomery street as fol
lows
No. 48, a three-story brick building, as
sessed at $4,000; asked for $1,000 re-
duction.
No. 56, four-story single brick building,
assessed at $4,000; asked for $1,000 re-
duction.
No. 46, ,four-stoly brick building, as
sessed at $4,000; asked for $1,000 re-
duction
Nos. 40, 81. So. four-story brick build
ing assessed at $780, 600; asked for 1000
reduction.
The Tax Commissioners and Law De-
fad n lAtfy,x x4f1s7 -