The Hawaiian gazette., 1907-12-06

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 we'll as the title of the
others named in the deed was, and for
many years had been, a matter of pub
lie record.
There is no evidence as to what eff
forts, if any, the assessor made to in
form himself as to the title of the
| land. However, it is clear and indis-
putable that 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, it 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
presumption can not be INDUCED in
that the assessor sought or obtained
information tending to show a fee
simple title in the defendant. 1t
can not be presumed, in the absence
of proof, that the defendant either by
act or word misled the assessor in
this regard.
&c nhxvin hof M "a af 9th n M
a conveyance to the defendant of the
outstanding titles, could truly exist
in opposition to the title as shown by
the record. Even though the common
law rule of rendering the owner of
life estate in possession liable for all
the taxes prevailed in this juIisdic-
ton, it would not apply in this case,
because of the meagerness of the evil
dence as to the possession of the land
in question by the defendant.-27
Ency., Law, 677; Cooley on Taxation,
2SS-2S9.
Therefore, in my opinion, the So
called assessments for the years 1899
to 1903, inclusive, were and are abso-
lutely void, and the taxes levied and
claimed thereon can not be collected
AAAC OOlOhNohl having SOAICQSu BC1
liability for the income tax of s2.46
and for the property tax of 1904, there
only remains for considerat ton the
property tax for 1905.
The defendant having returned the
land as a fee simple for the year
1904, it seems to me that the assessor
was justified in assuming that she was
the absolute owner in 1905. The de- !
PENDANT must be presumed to know |
more about her title than others.
The assessor at the time of making |
the assessment for 1905 could very
assume that the defendant i
had acquired the outstanding tftles in
the face of the fact that the defend
ant had returned the property as a
fee simple in herself for the previous
year. 1t was not for him to say under
these circumstances that the record
should be conclusive. For all he knew
at that time, and her actions in re-
turning the property as her own for
1904 said as much, she then held I'M
recorded deeds from the other owners
The fact that the evidence at the
trial showed that there had been no
change in the title is immaterial.
| therefore find that the plaintiff is
entitled to judgment against the de-
'endant for the income tax of SPAS
or the years 1901 and 1903 and for the
tax of s249.50 for the year 1894
and for the property tax of 1862 for
he year 1905. together with the stat
ltory penalty and interest thereon and
'osts, less the sum of s102 paid oni
recount of the taxes for the years
sO4 and 1895.
Judgment may be entered accord
ngly.
J. 7. DE BOLT,
First Judge.
December 4, 1907. II