Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1906-09-21
LISTERS FIGURES SUSTAINED.
Board of Civil Authority Made Three
Changes in Quadrennial Appraisal.

bodIu VI NiNu AuthoAisy Hh""s 1890
Changes in Quadrennial Appraisal.
The board of civil authority gave n
hearing in the sclectmen s rooms Sat
urday afternoon 10 those taxpayers who
had appealed from the valuation placed
ON their property by the listers at the
recent quadrennial appraisal. The near,
ing was set for Saturday morning Mt .
clock but at that time not enough
members of the board were present TO
make quorum. Selectman james r.
Hooker therefore postponed the hear.
ing until Tuesday. When the law had
been looked up by some of the aitor-
neys interested in the matter II was
found that Mr.. Hooker was at fault in
continuing the hearing as the appraisal
had to be filed with the town clerk
Saturday night. Consequently the board
of civil authority gathered in the AT
ternoon, those present being James +.
Hooker, Il. II. Putnam, II. Il. Weather
head, II. G. Barber, Il. w. Gibson, A.
+. Schwenk, h. &. Bacon and h. IL.
Davenport.
The first objector was Mrs. Bridget
Wood who bemoaned the fact that the
listers had raised the valuation of her
property on Cedar street from $1,000
to Sl,375. She also took occasion to
express in plain language her opinion
of the listers individually and as a
board. The next case taken up was
that of Holden 4 Martin. l.. h. Hol'
den said that the listers had raised
the figures on their Frost street prop
erty, including the Woodworking shop
and the building occupied by Hooker,
Corser 4 Mitchell, from Sl2,6Io to
sl7 900. This Mr.. Holden said was too
high as was also the valuation OF the
firm S property on Birge and Williams
streets. Mr.. Martin also spoke in be-
half of reduction, particularly OF the
property first mentioned, saying that
the listers had made mistake when
in getting at the valuation they hg
ured only % per cent. for power.
John 4. Lindsey objected because the
listers had raised the figures on has
house on Harris place from $500 to
$1,000. He said he thought the valua'
ton high enough before, Mrs. 9. u.
Lanson gave figures TO show that the
listers had increased too much the valu-
alton of her five houses on Washington
street, basing her argument on the act
nal cost of the houses and the. money
she received for rent. She was repre-
scented by A. r. Carpenter as counsel.
Clarke G, Fits next appeared IN be-
half of l.. II. Richardson. He said the
Frost property at the corner of Nam
and Elliot streets had been raised from
S5, 900 10 $500 and the Salisbury
building ON Main street from $4,000 to
81 900. Both of these increases We're
too much, in the opinion of Mr.. Fits,
when the valuation of surrounding
property was taken into consideration,
and he quoted figures in substantiation
of his claim.
Frank +. Barber appeared for Daniel
Brosnahan to object to the increase ON
Mr.. Brosnahan S Elliot street house,
which was raised from 5000 to ShlOO,
claiming that the previous figures We're
plenty high enough. Mr.. Barber also
W. A. Morse, who objected
because his Elliot street building. had
been increased from $4,000 TO $1,000
and his Elm street house from $1,000 to
SO 1900. In behalf of himself Mr.. Bar
Der objected because the farm owned
by himself and his brother, c. A. Bar
Der, had been raised from $3.50 to
s3 900. He said the new figures made
the valuation of the property appear
much higher than it really was.
George f. Selleck complained be.
cause his Chaplin street property mad
been raised from 1850 to $1,000. lie
also found fault because the valuation
of two houses on the south side of High
street. owned by Mary l.. Hadley, had
been left the same, instead of being
cnt down 5000 Frank A. Wells thought
the increase on his High street house
so 900 to $500 was out of proper
ton to its actual value, and Leslie
Smith took issue with the listers be-
cause they raised the figures on ms
Clark street place from s 500 to S2,ooo.
f. G. Barber registered strenuous
kick because of the advance which had
been made on the Ray property on
Main street-$7, 800 to $l3,000-clalm-
ing that the building was very much
out of repair. E. l.. Waterman APP
in behalf of Mrs. G.. w. Hooker
to see if the board would consider an
appeal from her on the valuation of
her Main street property. 1t was de-
cided, however, that the board had no
legal right to hear the ease because the
appeal had not been filed according
to law.
After the various objectors had been
given hearing the board of civil au-
thority went into executive session.
The results of its deliberations were
the following reductions: Holden 4
Martin s Frost street property, from
81 900 to $14 1000; c. A. and r. 4.
Barber s farm, $4,000 to $4,000; +. A.
Wells S house on High street, $1,000 to
50 200.