Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1906-01-24

Court finally adjourned yesterday after
noon after term OF seven days. Seven
ty-one cases came off the dock ct. There
were iorty-three judgments, twenty-four
entered neither party, and four divorces.
There were sixty-nine new entries.
SNOW VS.. ROGERS.
The stove case OF Snow VS.. Rogers, which
was on trial when THE AMERICAN went to
press last Wednesday, went to the jury in
the afternoon. verdict of $685. was re-
turned for plaintiff.
ELLSWORTH TAX CASE.
case OF more than usual interest be-
cause OF the points at law involved, was
that OF Bresnahan vs.. Msloney, which
went on trial Thursday forenoon.
This was an action to collect tax brought
by John II. Bresnahan, tax collector OF
Ellsworth, against Mrs. Maria f. Ma
Ioney, for tax amounting to sI0i for
the year 1901. r. E. Mason and L. B.
Dessy appeared for plaintiff, and d. E.
Hurley for defendant.
In 1904 orrin w. Trip was elected col
leNlOE Oh ld&e. tbI tuaA NttEs Al a pEl vi
the following year he resigned on the
ground that other business prevented his
continuing to serve, and the uncollected
tax OF 1901 was committed to John II.
Bresnahan as collector. Included in the
taxes thus committed to him was that OF
Maria Z. Maioney, which is the one in
this action.
Soon after taking the 1904 tax for eollee-
ton, Mr.. Bresnahan made demand upon
Mrs. Maloney for this tax, and finally
served written notice on her demanding
payment within ten days or suit would be
brought.
The plaintiff showed the facts as above
by City Clerk Hala with the city records,
and by Collector Bresnahan.
After plaintiffs case was in, counsel for
defendant asked for-non suit on the
ground that Mr.. Bresnahan was not le-
gally qualified as collector OF 1904 tax, in
that the municipal officers had no legal
authority to excuse Mr.. Trip from the
collection OF the tax for the reason stated
in his resignation; that the statute ex-
pressly provides that a collector OF taxes
shall not be excused except for death,
physical disability or insanity.
The court ordered the plaintiff nom
suited. This entry was sfterward changed
by agreement of counsel and court, and
the case win be reported to the law court
upon agreed statement Of facts.
Several interesting points OF law are in
volved, which are OF special importance
to the city OF Ellsworth.
The statue provides that an action such
as this cannot be brought by collector of
taxes within eight months of the commit
ment OF such tax "to him. In this case,
while the original commitment Of the tax
to Mr.. Trip was made more than the
eight months prior to the beginning OF
the suit, eight months had not expired
since the commitment OF the tax to Mr..
Bresnahan.
Plaintiff relied upon an Interpretation
of the law that would allow the bringing
OF the action within eight months OF the
original commitment, while defense
claimed that even ii Mr.. Bresnahan was
legally qualified to collect the tax, he
could not bring this action within eight
months from the time OF its commitment
10 him personally.
The question OF the sufficiency Of the
description on the assessment roll is also
involved. The tax is on several pieces OF
personal property, severaily described as
1.-THE Hagerthy place on Pine street., the
"Bonsey building on Water street., etc.
The valuation Of each of these several
properties is given on the assessment roll,
but the amount OF tax against each is not
carried out, the valuation of the several
pieces of property being Jumped and the
total tax being carried out against that.
This is the customary practice sElls-
worth where several pieces OF property are
assessed to one person.
The point is raised by the defendant
that, even IL the description is sufficient,
the plaintiff cannot maintain q lien
against one piece lof property for the. en-
tire amount of the tax, but only for the