Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-02-24
Lockwood Decision Against
City Of Watervi||e.
The County Commissioners May
Continue With Hearings.
Evidence in lockwood Tax Co. Valuation
will Be Received.

l., Whitehouse:
City of Waterville VS.. Bassett. Bradley
6. Adams. County Commissioners of Ken
neb,c County.
kcscript by Whitehousc, j.
In this proceeding the City of Water
willie appears as Il petitioner asking that
a writ OF prohibition issue from the SUI
prene judicial court to. pronibit the
hearing on an application OF the Lock-
wood Company for an abatement of taxes
on its property, from considering or fur
Their receiving any evidence tending to
show the value OF other property assess
cd in that city for the sane year. unless
the same be similar in kind or similarly
situated.
II is represented in the company's ap-
plication Tor an abatement that the val
uation placed by the assessors upon its
property for the years 1906 was $s41 ~.
and that the tax assessed thereon at 22l /.
Mills on the dollar amounted to $l9.92l !;
and it asks for an abatement of this
TAX for the reason that this valuation is
alleged to tie in excess OF the just value
OF the property. and that the tax is not
an equal apportionment and assessment
according IL the just value of the prop
erty.
At the hearing before the county COM
missioners on this petition fer aba ;em-nt
the chairman of the board of ;.,sessors
v as, Intercepted by the n tt0rneNS for til.
LOGS" God Company in regard to the val
uatiun placed ny the assessors on soma
~ othtr E!eces OF rear estate. not sim
iar in Il,Id or situation to tho Lock-
wood min property. and also as t. til.
actua! vaihe OF such other Ir.Iprrty in
distinction from its assessed valne not
only iol th@ purpoS". as all. god, of show
ing an differentiation OF those part .cu-
lar pieces OF property bat as tending also
to show a general practice ana uniform
design 70 uGdervaiue all Cf the real eS-
tate in the city. Tor the purpose q: taxa
ton. except that Of the Lockwood Com
l'any. THIS evidence was objected To by
III. attorneys for the city, but was re-
ccivod by the commissioners. Ii appear
Cd III evidence that there were more than
$50 other p!ccrA ri such taxabI" real es-
tate in the CITY and the aSscS*Grs denied
any such Intentional ,md, rva lI:a;iOn but
there WAS testimony from other witness
Is tending to show that the 80 specific
pieces of property wer,. III fact underval-
u'd and II was sought by this and other
evidence to prove q general design 20 I'M
Gcrvalue al taEab.e property il, the .tnvn
except that If the Lock wood Company.
Tin. constitution OF tins STATE declares
| that "ail taxes upon real and personal
Estate, assessed by authority 81 this
STATE, shall De aplorti"nc,l AMI assessed
| equally. according To the just vaIu' thsrr-
oi - and it IS broI .dcd 10y statu;. TINT
| any person agglieved by an assessment
| fur an abatement. and III ti'v think
| H. is ov@I1ated. lie shall be- relieved by
| th'm.' tlnSt"ad OF applying To ihe cotln-
T. commissioners he may also cl,ct to
| appeal directly to the supreme judicial
| court upon the same terms and condi-
| tions) In Fibre Co. VS.. Bradley, 70 Maine,
| 81 evidence was offered Of the valua-
| ton OF four other lots. not similar to the
petitioners but ii was held madmiSSble
for the mere purpose OF showing Gispro-
| portiOnate valuation. The word "over-
| rated "a used III this statute received an
| Interpretation in that case and it was
| there held that on petition for an 2bate
ment Of taxes on the ground of the over
| valuation of the petitioners property, the
| h..tk
| rated above its just value, or fair cash
| value and not whether II has been val
ued relatively higher than Il few other
| specific pieces OF property Of other per-
sons In that case as IN this. it was con-
| tended by the petitioner for abatement
| that when aSsessors have thus designedly
made Il general undervaluatiOn OF tn.
| property OF the town, but have assessed
| the petitioners property for more than
| the general rate. justice requires that the
| higher valuation should be reduced and
a corresponding abatement OF the taxes
! made to conform to the general rate.
| Will. on the other hand 1t may be in
| sisted that such intentional undervalua-
ton being in open violation of the consti-
| tuition, is public wrong which the court
| should neither initiate nor countenance,
but should seek by all appropriate means
! both to punish and prevent. But In that
| case the court held that evidence of the
] naturalization Of four pieces of proper
| ty was wholly insufficient to prove Il gem
| eral design to unGervalue the property OF
| the town, and that since the question Of
such general design was not raised by the
evidence. the court expressly refrain
! from deciding what should be the rule in
case where such a design was proved :
| But in this proceeding for a writ OF pro-
! hibitiOn. before it has been decided by
! the county commissioners that. any such
| general and designed differentiation has
been shown in this case. this court is
/ asked to interrupt the proceedings OF the
| tribunal having jurisdiction of the matter
under our law, and determine In advance,
| without opportunity for full and exhaus-
! tive examination 4 legal and constitu-
, tional question which has not in fact arts
| on and may never arise upon any finding
| of the county commiSsiOners-and before
| it appears that either party Is aggrieved
| by the final decision of that board-a
| question which was specifically reserved
by the full court until it should be neces-
| sarily and directly involved in the judi
| cial decision of q cause.
| This the courts are ordinarily unwill-
| ing to do. Long experience has shown
| ii to be a wiser and safer rule to apply
| the law to the facts after they have been
| found, and not to give opinions in adj
| vance upon academic questions.
| But the request for a writ OF prohibi-
| ton upon such state of facts and fer
| such a purpose, encounters other lnsup-
| cradle objections not involving the mer-
| its of the controversy.
In the first place it Is established by
an overwhelming weight and substantial
| ly uniform line Of authority that the eX-
/ Extraordinary remedy afforded by the an
cient writ of prohibition Is granted only
| for the purpose OF preventing n lower
| court from usurpng jurisdiction and
| exercising a power with which 1t has
not been vested. and not for the purpose
| of controlling its proceedings or prevent
| ing or correcting its errors respecting
the admission or exclusion of evidence.
| i'm causes of which it has acknowledged
jurisdiction. 1t Is clearly shown to have
been the original purpose of this writ and
| now its distinctive function to prevent
encroachments of jurisdiction by inferior
| courts and to keep them within the lin
| its and bounds prescribed for them by
| law.
But being n writ Of sound judicial dis
| erection and not necessarily writ Of
| right. il will not always be granted even
| to restrain the usurpatOn Of jurisdiction
| if other existing remedies are efficient and
| adequate to afford relief. 1t is a funda-
| mental principle that it win never be Al
| lowed as q remedy for grievances which
may be fully rcdressed in the ordinary
| course of judicial proceedings by appeal,
| writ of error or writ OF certiorari. II Is
not employed as process for the correc-
| ton of errors which may be committed
| by a lower court In the ordinary exercise
| Of its unquesioned Jurisdiction. 1t has
| been specifically held In numerous in
| stances and Is laid down rs 4 general rule
! in the A. 4 Il. Encyc Of Law. that error
| ia the reception or rejection Of evidence