The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-21
CAN'TDUPLICATETAX
SELLERS AND 0RUM WIN SUIT
 BROUGHT BY STATE.
Judge Richardson Holds That Payment Of Tax On Stock Invested In Mortgages "a suf-
 aAefent.

-e
 A new point of law. Involving con flict between the mortgage tax act and the law authorizing State and county taxes, went before the Circuit Court of Montgomery county yesterday in the case of the State against Sellers and Drum, large cotton warehouse firm of this city.
 A jury heard the evidence in the case hut. according to the charge of Judge J. C. Richardson, presiding, a verdict was rendered In favor of the contention of Sellers and Drum.
 In order to understand the law at issue, 1t is necessary to enter briefly into history of the case. For the current year. the tax assessor of Mont gomery county assessed the value of the capital stock of Sellers and Crum, for taxation, at $4O,000, its par value. Sell Iers and Drum declined to pay taxes on $40,0 ,000, capital stock The firm ad- mitted that this was the amount of its capital stock, but insisted that $20,0o0 of this stock had been invested in mortgages which had been duly re- corded in the office of the probate judge and on which, under the State mort gaKe tax law, the firm had paid fifteen cents per $100 for filing. The firm was willing to pay State and county taxes on the remaining s20,000 capital stock, but thought it unjust to be charged two taxes on the money fn- vested in mortgages.
 Falling to collect taxes as assessed, the State, through w. M. Blakey. brought action against Sellers and Drum in the Circuit Court.
 When the case came on for trial be- fore Judge Richardson yesterday after ~xF S,-A Ansr ka rb of the case were argued by counsel on both sides before the evidence was gone into before a jury.
 As soon as all the testimony was In, Judge Richardson charged in favor of the defendant, allowing a credit of S2O 900 in the valuation of the capital stock of the cotton warehouse firm. The firm, under this ruling is now liable to assessment and taxation on only s2O.o00.
 The State will appeal the case to the Supreme Court and the final re- suits in this tribunal will probably serve as a precedent in all other cases of a similar nature that may arise.
 At 6 o'clock last night, Judge Rich ardson gave a breathing spell to a jury that had been deliberating in case since p. m. and was unable to agree on a verdict He allowed the iurors to go to their homes until 3 o'clock this morning when they will meet again and resume their labors. He cautioned each juror to converse with no one regarding the matters De- fore him.
 l to reach an agreement. is that of Mrs. Mary Mclean. who is suing Thomas w. Donaldson and James Mcintyre for | S1kO. Mrs. Mclean formerly rented | from MT. Mcintyre a house on South | McDonough Street between Dexter Av' | enue and Washington Street. Claiming i that she did not pay her rant. Mrs Mclean alleges that Constable Donald son went to her house and put all oi | her household furnishings in the streets. The trial of the case began 1 a few minutes after II o'clock yester- day morning and 1t was concluded by l | o'clock This was the dinner hour and I the jury did not go into the jury cham Der until the jurors returned from their midday neal at 3 o'clock. Because the attorney for Mrs. Babe | whitley formulated an erroneous pa per which was filed in damage sui | In the Circuit Court Judge Richardson threw the case out of court and Mrs. 1 Whitley failed to recover damages oi J. NJ. Lord for an alleged restraint keeping her from moving her house l nOlQ GILGCI6 uGI EGoAQGnCGs fAC- cording to the evidence. Mrs. Whitley was renting from MT. Lord. and she owed him S1.44 as rent. Her effects were loaded on dray when he stopped 1 the removal.
 Just about the time that all evidence was in, Judge Richardson glanced al | the complaint. He found that It's form and wording made 1t purely an action for trespass and not a damage suit. Despite the protestations of the attor- ney for Mrs. Whitley, Judge Richard son announced a charge for the defend ant and verdict was therefore, ent- cred In favor of Mir. Lord. In another case in which Mrs. Whit ley was plaintiff and Sam Burge, the proprietor of a West End dray line. was defendant, and in which Mrs Whit ley had the same counsel. she was a trihe more successful. In this instance she was suing for damages to a stove which fell from dray, while being carted from one house to another. The jury found for the plaintiff and as- sessed the damages at SITS.
 Orders in other cases before the Cir- cult Court were as follows:
 J. c. Haas and c. F. Moritz vs. w. c. Holt. defendant; Hearn & Holt Lum- ber Co, garnishee; garnishee discharg- ed on motion of plaintiff.
 J. l.. Sample vs. Louisville and Nash ville Railroad Company. dismissed for failure to give security for cash or- dered at last term.
 Richard Tillis vs. Naham J. Griel, continued under former order.
 w. D. Andrews vs. J. M. Freeman, dismissed for want of prosecution on motion of defenEant
 Mattie Stoutemire vs. J. F. Boyd, dis missed for want of prosecution on mo- ton Of defendant.
 Mack Johnson and Will Barnes vs. W. s. West. dismissed for want of prose- cution.
 The Circuit Court will meet again at 8 o'clock this morning.