Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1905-12-14
IS
DISSOLVED
County Clerk Apportions Bridge
Tax.==City Refuses to Put 1t on
Tax Roll.

The injunctions that were served ON
County Clerk George Davis last week.
restraining him from spreading ethe
bridge levy upon the tax apportion-
ment of Nekoosa, Port Edwards,
Marshtield, and Grand Rapids, were
| dissolved at Stevens Point Thursday
afternoon by Judge Webb. by whom
they were tried. Due to a little mis-
understanding as to when the iniunc-
tions were to be served, they were of
no validity, and were pronounced so
by the court,
The reason for which Judge Webb
dissolved the four restraining orders
! previously issued upon the county
clerk was that he (Jhe county Clerk
was not the man upon whom they
should have been served. The princi-
| pie OF the whole affair was that this
| bridge levy was wrong tax or order
against land and the property of the
citizens of parts of Wood connty.
-
still in the hands of the County Clerk,
it had not yet been assessed against
the land, and was not, therefore, sub
ject to an injunction or order of re-
straint. At the same time, the judge
outlined to the several attorneys re.
presenting the parties seeking the in
innntion tho nrnnor mot hnd of
ting at the matter in way that
would make it necessary for it to be
settled by law. That method will be
usedsby the city, and in fact it has
already been done.
Saturday morning City Clerk Chas
Boles, having received the apportion-
ment OF county taxes the day before
from the county clerk, which appor-
tionment contained the bridge levy,
notified the county clerk and District
Attorney Theodore Brazeau that he
would refuse to spread the same upon
the tax levy Of the city, and that in
order to get the money collected the
county will have to bring suit,9 COM
pelling them to do so. This was the
plan outlined to the attorneys by. the
judge last week, in response to a query
as to the correct procedure.
The whole amount levied against
the city as county tax is $40, 1852, of
which 81, 1,SS2.36 is the amount Grand
Rapids was expected to pay toward
the keeping and construction Of the
county's bridges, and which sum the
county will have to sue the city for,
now, in order to get it. This leaves
total of S1S,6 ,667. 26 county tax that has
been spread upon the city tax roll
Just what the county Will do has
not yet been decided. District At
torney Theodore BraZeau, upon re:
celpt of notification of the city's
refusal to spread the bridge money
levy upon it's tax roll, said: so near
as can tell at this time, without hay
ing gone into the matter. with much
thoroughness we (the'county) will have
to sue the city for the money il we
are to get it. Whether this will be
done or not, am unable to say at this
time, though it is probable that we
shall do so, as the amount, nearly
So, 900, should not be allowed to come
back on the rest Of the county, if it
legally should not. A special meeting
of the county board may be called, as
the chairman thinks best, or it may
be left over till the next regular ses-
sion, and the tax apportioned among
those who must pay it next year"
There seems to be some question as
to the legality of the chapter in the
law under which this case comes, and
it is a question, apparently, as to
whether it is constitutional or not.
The suit, if brought against the city
by the county will be a sort of test
case. There has come up before the
recent extraordinary session of the
legislature bill for the purpose Of
amending this chapter of the laws,
but has not yet been acted upon.
What developments will now appear,
rest with the county officials.