Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1910-02-01
MOUNTA|NA|R
MINING COMPANY
Capitalized at One Million
Dollars Files Its Papers
Today
MANY TEACHERS CERTIFICATES
Important Opinion by Attorney
General as to Costs in Tax
Suits.

Acting Governor Nathan Jaffa to
day appointed the following notarie'
public: Julian Trujillo, Chimayo
Rio Arriba county; George H. Simp
kins, Las Vegas, San Miguel county.
Incorporation.
Incorporation papers were filed to
day in the office of Territorial Sec
retary Nathan Jaffa by the Mountain
air Mining Company with headquart
ers at Mountainair, Torrance county
The capitalization is one million dol
lars, divided into million shares. The
incorporators and directors are: P. w
Hoshor, 599,999 shares; Sherman Car
mony, 100000 shares; Emanuel Sharp
1 share, all of Mountainaire.
Dissolution of Corporation.
The Sam Schiff Company of Socor
ro, today filed a certificate of dissolu
tion with Territorial Secretary Nathan
Jaffa, the incorporators being Sam
Schiff, 450 shares; julius Schwarz, 25
shares, and Ike Holman, rs shares.
Teachers Certificates Issued.
Superintendent of Public Instruc.
ton J. E. Clark has thus far issued
$50 teachers country grade certifi
Gates as the result of the general ex.
aminations held in each county on
January Ia and Is and expects to is,
sue rs more certificates. Some delay
has been caused by the tardiness of
several county school superintendent
to make their reports.
District Court.
The drawing of jurors for the U. S.
grand and petit juries for the March
term of district court in this district,
will be held at $50 p. NJ, on February
12, by Judge John R. McFie, in the
presence of three disinterested citi-
zens.
Fees in Tax Cases.
Attorney General Frank w. Clancy
handed down the following opinion:
Honorable John E. Griffith, district
attorney, Socorro, N. M.
Dear Sir-Your letter of the 2Sth
inst, was received here on the 29th
and forwarded to me at Santa Fe,
where l received it yesterday.
think that the statutory provision as
to which the clerk of your court de-
sires an opinion, is not so clear as
to admit of no dispute or doubt as
to it's meaning, but, after careful COLI
sideration and reflection, 1 have
reached the following opinion:
The section referred to is section
20 of chapter %, of the Laws of 1899,
and is as follows:
I'm entering up judgment in all
such cases, the clerk shall add to the
amount of tax, penalties and costs,
as shown by such delinquent tax list,
five per centum of the amount due
from each person, or upon each lot or
parcel of property described, which
five per centum shall be the costs
of such proceedings, and when col
lected shall be paid over to the treas
urer of said county for the credit
of the court fund"
1t will be seen that in endeavoring
to reach conclusion as to the appli-
cability of this provision, which is an
exception to the general rules with
regard to costs, both as to amount and
to disposition, we must ascertain
what is meant by the phrase 'in all
such cases." An examination of the
whole statute shows that it was in
tended to revolutionize the general
practice as to suits for the collection
of delinquent taxes, and, instead of
suing delinquent tax payers separate
ly, to include them in a general list.
which should be advertised, and. with
the proof of publication, form the
basis for an omnibus suit covering
everything contained in the delin-
quent tax list, where the taxes were
more than twenty-five dollars. This
created new class of cases, different
from anything previously existing, and
it seems reasonable to believe that
the legislature, in making new
statutory provision as to the amount
and disposition of costs, was legis-
lating only with regard to this new
class of cases. 1t is true that in Sec
tion IL of the act there is proviso
as to separate suits under the provi.
sions of the act, by authority of the
judge of the district court, and it
might be argued that the phrase "in
all such cases" was intended to refer
to all such cases as are mentioned or
provided for anywhere in the act, no
matter what kind, but such a proviso
as the one about separate suits Gre
ates an exception to the rest of the
law applicable to special cases, and
the subject matter of the proviso is
not within the general purpose of the
act. This view is in harmony with
well-settled rules of construction of