The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1907-12-04
SUIT MAY Be FILED
TO SOLVE QUESTION
Broad Construction of a State
Law on the Subject by
Courts Responsible.
SITUATION is PUZZLING.
COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBBINS AD-
VISES TREASURER MYRiCk TO
HOLD CHARTERS PER CENT
TILL QUESTION is SETTLED.

At the regular December meeting
OF the board of county commissioners
held today, w. r. Charters. tax ad-
iustor, who holds a contract with
Wayne county for collecting omitted
taXables, presented a claim for 3d.
0S5.71, as his share Of the $lO,265.O
collected on omitted taXables the past
year. Charters holds Il contract with
the county under the terms of which
he receives thirty per cent of all ON
tilted taxes placed on the duplicate.
In response to an inquiry made by
the commissioners County Attorney
John T. Robbins, said that there was
no doubt in his mind, that the con
tract existing between Mr.. Charters
and Wayne county WAS perfectly val
i'd, inasmucb as the county council had
appropriated a fund to pay Il county
tax adjustor prior to the drawing up of
the contract held by Mr. Charters.
Mr.. Robbins stated. that the supre-
me court and the appellate court had
each rendered decisions to the effect
that in counties where funds had been
appropriated to pay fax adjustors for
their services, contracts between
counties and tax adiustors were legal
These decisions. Mr.. Robbins stated
were all based on the ground that
there is no regularly appointed cOun-
ty officer whose duty it is to collect
taxes on omitted taxables. Mr.. Rob
bins said, that he confidently expected
that some day the supreme court
would overrule it's decisions on this
question because the court had evi-
IDENTIFY overlooked the statute which
cited that it was the duty of the coun-
ty assessor to search for and collect
taxes on omitted taXables.
Mr.. Robbins then held that it was
doubtful if Mr.. Charters under his con-
tract with the county, had the right to
deduct thirty per cent from the city
Of Richmond's share of the $10,2S5.70
collected on omitted taXables. Mr..
Charters disagree ed with Mr.. Robbins
on this point. saving that he had the
legal right, Notwithstanding the fact
that his contract with the city had
expired. under the statutes of 1905.
Mr.. Robbins stated, that in his opin-
only authorize the county treasurer to
deduct Mr.. Charters thirty per cent
from the states and county's share of
the amount collected. He said that
the statute as he construed it made
no provision for the deduction of thir-
ty per cent from the city's share. OF
the $1O,2S5.7O collected by Mr.. Char
ters. the city's share is about $4,114.2S.
OF this amount Mr.. Charters claims
$1.234.2S.
At the meeting of the city council
Monday night City Controller Parry
presented communication in which
he said that County Treasurer My
rick had retained thirty per cent of
the city's share Of the amount collect
ed by Mr.. Charters. Inasmuch as the
city no longer has contract with
Charters the city has entered a pro-
test against any amount being deduct
ed from its share to pay Charters, I'M
der the contract he holds with the
county. Mr.. Robbins held that the
question envolved was one for the
court to decide and he advised County
Treasurer Myrick not to pay over to
Mr.. Charters any percentage of the
city's share of taxes on omitted tax
ables unless so authorized by the
court. Mr.. Myrick said that he had
withheld thirty per cent from the
city's share for his own protection
and not to pay Charters.