The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-12-05

no apportionment Of the taxes in this
case. because the respective values of
the separate interests of the various
owners Of the land has not been deter
mined nor assessed accordingly or at
all.
Section 1895 (R. Ii provides that
If any person shall refuse or neg
lect 10 make said return, or shall de-
cline to take oath TO the accuracy
thereof. the assessor may make such
assessment according to the best in
formation within reach, and the same
shall be binding and conclusive upon
all parties, and shall not be subject
to appeal
In the case at bar the title Of the
defendant, as well as the title Of the
others named in the deed was, and for
many years had been, matter of pub
lie record.
There is no evidence as to what ef-
forts. if any, the assessor made 10 in
form himself as to the title OF the
land. However, it is clear and indis-
putabIe that 1.-The best information
within his reach" as to the separate
and respective interests of the parties
in and TO the land in question, was
the public record of the deed
Failing to avail himself of this pos
tive information, clearly within his
reach. ii would seem to necessarily
follow that the assessments for the
years 1899 1900, 1901, 1902 and 1903 are
not binding nor conclusive upon the
defendant, but are absolutely void.
In the face of the record title, the
can not be INDUCED in
that the assessor sought or obtained
tending to show fee
simple title in the defendant. Tt
can not be presumed, in the absence
Of proof. that the defendant either by
act or word misled the assessor in |
this regard.
1t is obvious that no fact, other than |
1 conveyance to the defendant of the |
titles, could truly exist |
n opposition to the title as shown by |
he record. Even though the common |
aw rule of rendering the owner of a /
ife estate in possession liable for all /
he taxes prevailed in this jurisdic- I
ion, it would not apply in this case,
because of the meagerness of the evil
lence as to the possession of the land |
n question by the defendant.-27
Ency., Law, 677; Cooley on Taxation,
S8-2S9.
Therefore, in my opinion, the So
allied assessments for the years 1899
o 1908, inclusive, were and are abso-
utely void, and the taxes levied and
damned thereon can not be collected.
The defendant having conceded her
liability for the income tax of S2.46
nd for the property tax of 1904, there
My remains for consideration the /
tax for 1905.
The defendant having returned the
and as a fee simple for the year
904. it seems to me that the assessor
vas justified in assuming that she was
he absolute owner in 1905. The de-
endant must be presumed to know
more about her title than others.
The assessor at the time of making
he assessment for 1905 could very
assume that the defendant
lad acquired the outstanding titles in
he face of the fact that the defend
mt had returned the property as a
ee simple in herself for the previous
ear. 1t was not for him to say under
hese circumstances that the record
hould be conclusive. For all he knew
t that time, and her actions in re-
urning the property as her own for
904 said as much, she then held I'M
ecorded deeds from the other owners.
NE fact that the evidence at the
rial showed that there had been no
hange in the title is immaterial
l therefore find that the plaintiff is
Untitled to judgment against the de-
endant for the income tax of S2.4S
or the years 1901 and 1903 and for the
tax of s249.5O for the year 1904
nd for the property tax of 1852 for
he year 1905, together with the stat
tory penalty and interest thereon and
osts, less the sum of $102 paid on
ccount of the taxes for the years
904 and 1905.
Judgment may be entered accord
ngly.
j. T. DE BOLT,
First Judge.
Danarahaxr A 1on-