Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1907-11-02

havlng 4 contract sith 4 ,chool book |
board sar fnfnishi school books.
cannot compel such board to continue
.or renew his contract for I've years
after its expiration on the ground |
that the board has changed books |
without sufficient vote The court |
dismissed the alternative writ and re-
fused a peremptory mandarin.
Courts Power Not Limited.
In an elaborate opinion handed
down by Judge Poffenberger. the SUI
preme court of appeals rendered an
adverse decision to the state in the
case of A. B. White. tax commission
err, against the Writ county court,
sustaining the contention of the coun-
ty court in that the act OF the last leg
islature in limiting the levy of the
several counties not to exceed 80
cents on the one hundred dollars val
uation OF taxable property for county
purposes. does not limit the powers
of the county courts respecting the
amounts to raised by taxation for
district road purposes.
The Writ county case was brought
| to test the new law passed by the
Legislature of 1907, limiting the levy
to be made by the county courts to
80 cents for county purposes The
construction placed on the law by
the state tax department was that
| this Included the fund for the inn
| provement of roads The county
court of Writ county on the 31st day
Of July, 1907, levied for county pur-
poses proper So cents on every one
hundred dollars valuation Of property
in said county, and, in addition there
to- 10 cents on the valuation of prop
erty la one district for road purposes
30 cents in another, % cents in three
others. 80 1-3 cents in another and 20
cents in another
Conceiving this levy to be in viola
! ton Of the law according to the con
struction placed on the same by the
tax department, State Tax Commits
sioner White, and F H. Lockhart and
s. r. Mitchell, citizens. residents and
taxpayers of said county as relators.
have asked in the name Of the state.
a writ Of mandamus, to compel said
county court to lay leyies for county
and road purposes in conformity
with the law Their contention was
that the court. exceeded the statutory
limit upon IS power Of taxation for
county roaa purposes
The case was argued before the
supreme court of appeals at the
Charles Town term OF court. but no
opinion was handed down. the court
taking time to consider. Tuesday the
court handed down its opinion. writ
ten by Judge Poffenbarger denying
the writ of mandamus asked for by
the state tax commissioner. The de-
cision of the court practically lets
down the bars in every county of the
state with no limit on the amount to
be levied by the county courts for
road purposes.
The court in its opinion. says:
The rule forbidding construc.
ton that win lead to an absurd re-
suit or defeat the clear intention OF
| the legislature. has been invoked
but we are unable to bring the case
within it. When language found in
a statdte will bear two constructions.
| one Of which is consistent with and
the other contrary to. the general
or manifest legislative intention.
/ gathered from other statutes, the
context or facts and circumstances,
relating to the subject matter. within
he judicial knowledge Of the court.
the former will prevail. and mere
clerical mistakes will be corrected, if
necessary to affect It's adoption. But
in such case. there must be terms
susceptible Of two OK more interpre-
tation; or, at least, the terms OF the
statute must cover the subject mat
ter Of both constructions
The syllabus follows
l. TIE clavse in section % OF
Chapter 80 Of the Code, as amended
bv chapter 65 of the acts of the leg
islature Of 1907. SAYING "The said
county court shalt therenpon lew SO
many cents on every hundred dollars
Of the valuation OF the property tax.
able in the county according to the
last assessment thereof as will cover |
the estimated amount necessary to be |
raised for county purposes and as
aforeaid approved during the fiscal /,
year; but such levy snail in no case
exceed thirty-ive cents on the one |