The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1906-12-11

alton held a very interesting session o
Wednesday, at which two points of intel
est were considered. The first was th
assessment of bank stock.
William D. Lippincott and George N
Hillman, of Moorestown; Thomas Z
French, of Camden; Charles EVAN Mel
rt. of Mount Holly. represented tn
banks, Richard B. Eckman, of Noun
Holly, appearing for the township o
Northampton.
Mr.. Lippincott was the first speaker an,
referred to the assessment on the stock o
the First National Bank, of Camden, an'
the National State Bank of the same place
He contended that there was no uniform
ity in the matter of valuation of banl
stock, each county apparently having
rule of its own. He objected to the man
ner in which the rate was reached in thi
county and quoted sales of the two stocks
showing that the figures realized were les
than the assessed price.
| Mr.. French followed Mr.. Lippincott an(
quoted the law on the subject, and argued
that in getting at the value of bank stool
the institution should be allowed de
auctions for every non-taxable stocks anC
bonds in its possession. This is the ceurs,
followed In the assessment of the sharei
OF trust company and he could see auy
reason for discrimination.
Mr.. Hillman spoke for the Mount Holly
and the Union National banks. The stock
OF both of them was above the market
price, which, he claimed, should govern
the subject The law, he said, requires
this property to be assessed at its true
value, and he took exception at the method
at which the Board arrived at it's conclu-
sion.
Mr.. Merritt represented the Farmers
National, of Mount Holly, and the First
National, of Vincentown. The former
sells at $65 per share and is assessed at
$72, the latter goes begging at 800, while
the tax books show it to be worth $780,
If the present method of assessing is to be
continued it would pay better for every
owner of bank stock to sell his holdidg
and put the money on deposit at three per
cent. interest. He argued that there was
not equal taxation in this matter because
banks are assessed without being allowed
deductions for certain securities, while
trust companies are given the deductions.
He believed that it was intended that banks
and trust companies should be on the
same basis.
For the township of Northampton Mr..
Eckman argued that the assessment was
In accordance with the letter and the
spirit of the law. He quoted several
authorities to sustain his position. He
did not believe that the securities men,
toned could be deducted from the val
uations, they were merely exempt, not
counted on either side. He could not see
any good reason for changing the assess
ment
The argument occupied about two hours
and at its conclusion the Board announced
that decision would be reached later.
The next case was the appeal of John
ID. johnson from the assessment on his
real estate in Mount Holly, The proper
ty is situate on High street, and is assess
ed at $50, 900. Mr.. johnson asked that it
be reduced to $4,000. He was represent
ed by William d. Lippincott, of Moores-
town.
Mr.. johnson was sworn and stated that
he bought the property in question from
Franklin B. Lewis in 1892, paying 81, 500
for it. He desired to make some improve
lnents and he sought bids. John s. Rog-
ers put in bid to do the work for SIS
200 If his mill work was used, but added
81 900 if other mills were brought
In. Mr.. johnson thought the figures too
high and decided to have the work done
by the day. He thought he made the i'm
PAOV ChCnb6 lOl lCoo budu P1O,OOO. AIlcT
that he built an addition to the house and
q stable, which cost him 10000 The
new brick work necessary amounted to
81. 900, making the total cost of the i'm
provements $27. 900. He did not use the
old material in the house, but tore the
most of it down. The upright pieces,
ioists and part of the roof were used. but
Mr.. johnson considered them in the first
price.
de said he had three bathrooms, and on
being asked if they were fitted up under
the contract he said they were not. One
Of them cost $75. He has hardwood floors
Or wood carpets, which, according to the
he presented, cost $30S. |
They were not in the contract. He could |
not exactly state the cost of the electric |
light wiring, chandeliers, etc, but he |
thought 5000 would cover it. A wall at |
The front of the property cost 81 900, but |
Mr.. johnson said he tore down better |
wall to put this one up, and he did not |
,hink the present wall added anything to |
the value of the property. He cited the |
assessment of properties on either side of |
High street, above and below his, and said |
he considered he was assessed entirely loo |
high, and said he would sell his property |
1t less than the amount at which it is |
,ated. He had never offered it for sale,
nor had he ever received an offer for it. |
Property in Mount Holly, as rule, sells
Tor much less than it cost.
John s. Rogers told of figuring on the
to the johnson property. |
Asked If he thought the house could be
duplicated for $27 900 he said he was not |
sufficiently acquainted with the interior
10 answer that question, but he did think |
n of UaluQ 0Onld ha for hot
gum.
Artillias A. Anderson, the real estate |
1ealer, was called to Igive an opinion on |
the value cf Mount Holly property. 1t
was his idea that large properties were
hard to sell at anywhere near their value, |
Is the demand for them is not great. The |
of B. F. H. Shreve was offered |
1t one time for SIS, 900, but the prospect |
I'VE buyer did not take it. He quoted the |
Ashhurst place as one instance of the diff |
fculty to sell such properties. 1t was in |
The market for long time at 1000, at |
which figure it eventually was disposed |
Of. He thought that such properties as
MIR. johnson could not be sold at any
price, and based his opinion on past occur
rences. Being asked to name another
such property" as Mr.. Johnson's in Mount
Holly, he said he could not do it as tn ere
was no other such property in the town.
Frederick Fl. Lee testified that, in his
opinion, the johnson property would not
bring more than $4,000. The Wardell
Brown property, now owned by Mr.. Lee,
sold for 100000 The Ashhurst property
was another instance. 1t probably cost
$75. 900, and was offered to him for SIC, 0O0
The Masons never made an offer for the
to be used as Home, notwith
standing the rumor to that effect
lon this point the witness was mistaken.
We have it from the lips of a gentleman
who made the offer that he tried to buy the
Ashhurst property for a Masonic Home
for $15, 900, and the owner refused to take
less than $25, 900. at which price the gen.
tleman took an option and held it for two
months, until the Burlington property
was decided upon.-Editor of News
At the conclusion of the testimony on
the real estate the President of the Board
stated that it was desired to question Mr..
johnson on the value of his personal
property which is assessed at S., 900.
Mr.. johnson said he objected to that
matter being taken up as he thought it
was unfair at that time. He was perfectly
willing to take the matter up if the Board
was ready to go over the town on personal
property. He said he was perfectly will
ing to take the figures of the Board and
had not tried to take up the matter of
personal property.
The President told Mr. johnson that the
Board would do here as it had done in
other places. The law allows the Board
to inquire into all properties. Where
there is demand to cut down property
100 per cent, because it is assessed too
high, there certainly is Justice that the
township should be protected if the assess
ment is not high enough.
To this Mr.. johnson replied that he was
not afraid to go into his personal proper
ty, but he did say that because he had ac-
cepted the Boards personal assessment in
Mount Holly, he did think it would be
unfair to go into that matter now.