The daily palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1904-1905, 1904-06-24
GIVES FULL INFORMATION THE KINsEY ESTATE CUES
TON PALLADIUM
Was by the County
Attorney, J.. F. Robbins.

Kinsey's estate and collected, and
that the auditor could proceed to
make an assessment upon the infor-
nation ,gen though Mr.. Compton
made an assessment prior and it did
not include the same property upon
which I proposed to assess him.
The county auditor gave a notice
to David w. Kinsey, as the executor
of Lewis kinsey's estate, and set the
time for hearing on or before Mon
day, June Goth, 1904, at 10 O'Clock
a. M, and sent same by registered
letter tosghe address Of the executor,
at Newcastle, Henry county, Ind.
The Supreme Court Of this State, in
the case Of Buck ct al, trustees VS..
Miller, Treasurer, etc, ia Ind, PIP.
$50 held that "the assessing officer
is not required to go outside his own
county to give notice to ally one Of
his intenti, to assess omitted prop
erty, under Section $500, R. S., 1894,
requiring county auditors to give no.
tice of their intention to assess omit
ted property of any resident Of the
county, The auditor could have
made the assessment without notice.
The Supreme Court, in the case Of
Crowder VS.. Riggs, auditor, {152.
Ind, 1917 "when any one secEs the
aid Of "a court of equity to enjoin
the assessment Of property for taxa
tion or addiction Of taxes, lie can lot
obtain Ie.ief on the ground of want
or inslt{ficiency Of notice, or other in
formalities or irregularities. If the
property is taxable, the want of no.
tice or insufficiency thereof or any
irregularity or informality, does not
entitle th eowner thereof to an In
, Junction. Also in the same case at
page 1853, GAN injunction will not lie
to restrain the county auditor from
placing upon the tax duplicate prop
erty alleged to have been omitted
from taxation for certain years il
taxable property belin"ing to plain
tiff was omitted from the tax dupli
cate in any of the Years mentioned.'
l Quoting from the case Of Fleene1
VS.. Litsey (30th Appellate at page
: 404) which reads: "The law doe:
not lay rpon the taxing officers th'
} duty of hunting for secretcd ant
! omitted ,;operty. They have per
= formed the full measure of their dut,
: when they have placed upon the ia:
| duplicate all taxable property tha
r has come 10 their knowledge, or con
: cerning which they shall 'receiv
t credible information The count
: auditor must, under the statute, Civ
d the notice. afford the hearing provid
:, ed, and add the omitted property t
d the tax duplicate whenever he 'shal
d discover IT receive credible informa
o ton, or have reason to believe tha
It property liable for taxation has bee
a omitted, and thus escaped its just bu1
d den for any year or any number {
d wears. In deciding the very questio
1t here presented: the Supreme Cour
s in City Of Richmond VS.. Dickinso
I SUPRA, held that the common counc
al of city had the power to pay fl
Id "cradible information that will aC
W to the public revenues, and eouali
tie the burden of the taxpayers. 1t
es not only the policy, but the spirit
ne the law that all property. both re
ht and personal, which is subject to Ia
l alton, shall bear its proportional
tn share Of the public burden, and pub
ce policy demands that every taxpay
IF contribute hi sjust proportion TO t
he expenses of government. Proper
at that has been secreted and omit
lp- and escaped taxation for the cure
ce. year and previous years, should, wh
is discovered, be placed on the tax {
ng plicate. AS we have seen it is
ro- the duty of the proper taxing of1ic
OBJ to hunt for omitted property and
ho- the law authorizes any method
ar discovering such property so it II
ice, be taxed. he efforts Of public oi1ic
ntv in securing that result should be
for couraged and upheld. Though
to centage of the amount thus collec
ing and covered into the public treas
the is paid for ferreting out and disc
M. ering the property, still the publ