The Havre herald. [volume] (Havre, Mont.) 1904-1908, 1905-10-27
HAVRE, MONT, OCT. 81. 1905
IMPORTANT DESITION

| the stock may be assessed, for pu1
! poses of taxation, only in the count
III which is located the home range 0
the owner. To justify assessment j,
any other country, the officials mus
show that the stock were driven int,
such county and remained there will
the knowledge and consent of The
/ owner
Such is the purport Of the decision
just given by Judge Tattan in the
| suit OF the Coburn Cattle Co. VS.. S. G.
| Small, Treasurer of Valley county
| and Valley county. The action was
a test case, in which stockmen al
over the state had taken much in.
terest, and the decision is of great
importance to them.
Attorney Fletcher Maddox who an
peared for the COburnS in the case,
returned to the city yesterday morn
ing, having secured the decision for
which he had asked. after a several
days trial, in which the county at
torney OF Valley county was assisted
by {. b. Nolan Of Helena former at
tomey general.
The home ranch and the home
range Of the COburns are in Ch0utean
county, but their cattle stray into
Valley, Dawson, Custer, Teton and
Fergus counties. At one time. the
evidence showed, about 800 head of
the Circle {. cattle were in Valley
county. But all the testimony showed
that, every fall. the Coburns round
up all the cattle they can find and re-
turn them to ChOuteau county. Be-
tore the winter storms the cattle
DRIFT for many miles, and on the first
Monday III March, at which time the
assessment is presumably made. MANY
OF the cattle are in counties other
than Ch0uteau.
In 1903, the assessor of VALLEY
county assessed the COburns for |. 300
mead OF cattle in that county. They
asked that the assessment be cancell-
ed, but the board of equalization
refused to cancel the assessment. and
the CoburnS paid the taxes under prO
test, at the same time paving taxes
on the same cattle to the treasurer of
Ch0uteau county. The same thing
was repeated in 1904 and again this
year. But immediately after paving
the 1903 taxes, the Coburns brought |
suit to recover the amount from |
valley county, and it was agree that |
the decision in that suit should apDIv |
to all taxes paid later under the same
circumstances.
When the case came to trial a few
days ago, the evidence was conclusive /
that the home range of the COburns
is in Chouteau county: that their
cattle found in Valley county had
drifted into that county without
their knowledge, and that they made
a practice OF returning all their cattle
to Chouteau county at the time of
the usual roundup. Under this show
showing, Judge Tattan ruled that the
cattle could be assessed in Chouteau
county alone and gave Judgment
against Valley county for all the
money paid by the Ioburns under
protest.
Under the tax laws, it is almost
impossible TO reverse action OF
board Of equalization: to do so requires
legislation and much expense. If
Judge Tattan's decision had been
against the Coburns contest, all their
cattle might have been assessed in
each Of several countless and they
would have been constantly annoyed
by litigation, besides having much
money tied up. Many other stockmen
III tie state operate under similar
conditions, hence many were interest
ed III the outcome Of the suit and
VIII be pleased by the result. Trib-
unc.