Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1908-07-23
JUDGE Moore and the Tax Ferrets.


II oriticises his decision in the tai
ferret cases and states that 1t wal
rendered in opposition to the tax
payers interests, charging that il
cost the county $4,000, As a matter
Of fact the decision that enabled Mol
& Co. 10 draw their contract money
was not opposed to any attorney mol
taxpayer and instead Of the county
being out $1,000 from the tax ferret
matter it is really ahead about $4,000
as that much more than the tax fer
ret's bill was collected In taxes-and
II may be said that not dollar Of
that tax will be refunded to the tax
PAYERS who contributed 1t.
Now for a little history.
1t may likewise be stated that MoiI
would have collected his money nc
matter how the case was decided-be'
cause he performed service, the
county accepted it and received the
benefit. That is supreme court de-
cision also.
About four to six years ago there
was general impression throughout
the state that there was great deal
Of personal property in this state not
listed for taxation which ought to bel
The county commissioners Of this
county shared in that belief, and
while they knew that personal prop
erty listed for taxation was entirely
out Of proportion to the actual value
OF the personal property of the coun-
ty they were unable by the usual
methods provided by law to ferret
out and discover their property or to
ascertain who was concealing his
property from the assessors.
For the purpose Of discovering this
concealed property the board Of coun-
ty commissioners, S. H. Mccullough,
s. Baker and B. D. Fry, entered into a
written contract with Moir & Co. to
assist them in finding any property
which should be on the tax rolls Of
the county which was not already
there. To save the county from any
possible loss ocCasioned by this en-
ployment they put in the contract a
clause providing that Moir & Co.
should receive no pay until The prop
erty was found, and placed upon the
tax rolls and the taxes due ON the same
actually paid in cash into the county
treasury and then they were to have q
sum equal to % per cent Of the amount
SO paid into the county treasury and
no more. This seemed a fair prop
osition for the county as the county
as the county under the contract had
everything to gain and nothing to
lose.
Moir & Co. worked about two
years in examining records, files and
documents and other evidence to as
certain what property had been
wrongfully omitted from the tax roll
Of this county. They made report to
the county commissioners and the
county clerk at various times Of such
facts as they had discovered, and after
Of the reports the county
clerk was ordered to place such prop
erty as it was deemed was legally tax
able in this county upon the tax-rolls.
The amount so discovered and placed
upon the tax rolls by the county clerk
aggregated several hundred thousand
dollars. Some Of the property SO
placed upon the tax rolls was after
ward found to belong to some other
than the records disclosed, and 1t was
stricken from the tax rolls. But the
amount retained upon the taxrolls
still aggregated into the hundreds OF
Of dollars.
Some OF the parties whose property
had been discovered by Moir 6 Co.
and placed upon the tax roll did not
like to pay taxes upon it and they in
stituted suit in the district court to
snjoin the county commissioners and
Moir & Co. from making any further
search for concealed property and
from carrying out the terms Of said
contract The application came on
Tor hearing before Judge Moore and
his opinion is now on file at the court
house from which 1t appears that this
character Of contracts up to that time
had never been passed upon BY any
court In this state except BY Judge