Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-05-30

road the taxes should be deducted a.
= part Of the expenses OF operation.
(26, New. 1850. In compliance with
this rule the instruction ought to have
been given. But in determining II =
value OF the road on the basis Of ifs
earning capacity capitalized at current
rates OF Interest," I, should be given
the benefit OF the payment Of it's taxes
only once, SO that in-ascertaining what
the current rates of interest are. the
net yield On other Investments after
the. payment Of taxes on them
should be taken as a guide. For
instance there was proof on the
trial that per cent and per cen,
was paid on mortgages in Lander
county If the tax on these was paid
by the mortgage. and not by the
mortgagor they would be properly de.
Quoted from the interest rate in arr,v-
Ing at the net yield of the investment.
! and the true earning value of the mon
ey placed in such mortgages. 1t could
be shown whether the income from
investments other than government
bonds. which command a lower rate hv
would be reduced by the usual tax
rate
| Exception was taken to- the ey,
dence introduced on behalf OF tn
State that the articles of incorporation
Of, the Nevada Central Railroad Com
pany provided for $500 shares of stoel
OF a par value of $4,000 a share ana
4, that the Company had made mort
gage in 1888 for $4,000 90 on all it,
property to the Contra, Trust Com
pGny of New York and that Lander
County in 1879 issued $20o. 10000 in
bonds to aid the building of the road
AZ said before a railroad is differer.
from ordinary property having a mar
ket value. and its cost may be shown
Under the circumstances the giving q,
the mortgage was in the nature Of ar
admission that the property was
worth the amount CT the loan, and thu
value of the corporate shares, and tn
amount of the bonds issued hy the
county to aid in the construction OF
the road had a tendency TO show tina;
tnese sums were a part OF the COS.
for the same presumption would at
tach that these moneys were eConou.
G0II1 aSS0 CcIaStICctiOt1 t1l6I PIC
wallis in regard 20 its operation
Presumably IT. cost is its value W
; til the time 2 lesser or different valUe
is shown. The presumption that the
road is worth Its cost continues unit
it is shown that it is less by reason
Of insufficient earning capicity to pay
net current rates of interest on it,
cost or from other causes
Defendant further contends that tn
levy of $l5T for county purposes. or
each 500 of valuation made the Who'll.
levy void under the following provis
| ion Of the Revenue Act; The Boar
Of County rnmisSiCners OF each
, county OF this State are hereby author
, lied and empowered to levy annually
on or before the first Monday ir
: March. an ad sl9rcm tax for count,
: purposes. not eHceeding the sum OF tv,
. dollars on each one hundred dollars va
Z ne of the taxable property In the cour
+ ! ty and such special taxes as may u
, authorized and required bv law: ORC
: vided, the total tax levy in any ona
: year for all purposes shall not excees
! five dollars on each one hundred dol
{ lars value OF taxahe property in am
L
" levy in excess Of one dollar and fit,
t cents on each one hundred dollar
' value Of taxable property there's
+ shal be 40 levied in any county O
q this State for county purposes unles
4 the county is indebted for liahilitie
e contracted prior to January 1st. mex
;, proceeding the making thereof an
o not bonded or funded
8 II was not shown that the coun.
|, was not indebted for liabilities cor
I tracted prior to 1901. and the presuu
n ption lie In favor Of official action an
= the levy. This makes 1t unnecessar
+ to determine whether such levy wo,,l
n have been invalid it it had been, show.
l. that no such prior Indebtedness e,
/. listed
4 The defendant sought to have thei
n witness, Hiskey. state the amount {
n the receipts and earnings of the rOa
;, Tor the previous ten years as show
2 by the balances standing on tn
r books. The testimony was properi
{. excluded because the witness had M
q made the computations and did n,
y know whether they were. correct nc
=. what items they included and did nj
' bring them under the rule we hav
q herein before stated
r =. When the case is tried again til
i court can determine whether there
X evidence to. cover pr warrant. tn
It modification to instruction No. S. w
= have examined the other specification
= lreated in the elaborate and interes
il. Ing briefs but find no error in reSai
"a to them. The case is remanded Z,
r. new trial
N ~N- Talbot. J.
- We Concur
le ~, Fitzgerald. L. J.
N Eorcross. J.
Filed Nav 8. 1905,
ID w. J. Douglass, Clerk
.f BY J. W Legate. Deputy.
q