Bisbee daily review., 1910-04-06

required. by the parties appealing
 to the board. and they shall have
 tho right to make any statement
 touching such assessmsnt. and pro
 ducinr evidence relating to ques-
 tions before the board. and the board
 Of equa ization shall make use of all
 ether information thst they can
 gain otherwise. in equalizing the
 aesessment roll of the county. and
 may require the assessor to enter
 upon such assessment roll any
 ether property which has not been
 assesasd: and the assessment and
 equalization so made shall have
 the same force and effect as if made by the assessor before the
 delivery of the assessment roll to
 (by) him by (to) the clerk cf the
 board. Of equalization.
 The raise here made was never CT. tered upon the original assessment roll This WIS a mere omission and harm 'ess. Waliapai Mining Co. vs- Territory. Ariz.. S73.
 The raise was first carried into the tax books by an entry upon the du- prcafe assessment roll as follows;
 (Here fellows the schedule.)
 Disregardlng for the present a vari- ation in the names of the sixty-fve claims. tho delinquent tax roll, the hack tax book and the back tax bill substantially conform to the duplicate assessment roll. except cs to certain entries cf payments. penalties and in- terest.
 It is apparent from an examination of this roll that there are in effect two assessments for the same year against each Of the eight claims raised. One. an assessment conirgled with that Of sixty-four other claims en bloc; the other separate and distinct. This Is no mere irregularity. The legality or the original assessment as an entirety has been sustained solely on the ground that the property was so re turned by the taxpayer. The board disregarded such return and the vaid- ity of its action must be determined under the statute alone. It might be argued successfully that lad the beard of supervisors raised the as sessment upon the group. sach a raise would have been valid. But the board segregated from the group ceT- tan claims and imqcsed thereon an additional assessment. l. is a fun damental rule of taxation in this ter ritory that a taxpayer may pay upon any one of parcels separately as sessed. discharging the lein thereon, without paying upon the remainder Par. 2676. Revised Statutes of 1887.
 Judge Cooley says:
 When two parcels arc owned by
 the same perscn, is the statute re-
 quires a separate assessment obs-
 dieuce to the requirement is es-
 esntial 10 the validity of the pro-
 ceedings. It cannot be hsld ia any case that it is unimportaDt to the taxpayer whether this require
 ment is compiled with or not. In deed. it is made solely for his ben eft: 1t being wholeiy immatedal go far as the interests of the state
 is concerned, whether separate es-
 tstes are or are rot separately as
 sessed. And where a requirement
 has for its sole object the benefit
 of the taxpayer. the necessity for
 a compliance with it cannot be
 made to depend upon the circuu
 stances cf a particular case, and
 the opinion of a court or jury rs
 gzrdjng the importance of obedi-
 ence to it in that instance. That
 method of construing statutes
 would abolish ail certainty" Coo
 ley on Taxation, page 735.
 By the action of which complaint is made here, the board deprived the ap- pellee of this right Upon the raiae being made it had the 'agal right to determine upon which. if any. of the claims so raised, il would pay. Ii it determined to pay upon none. it was. nevertheless. obliged to pay 8 portion of the tax thereon if it exercised its right to pay upon the ffty-seyen claims remaining, for the tax col lector. under paragraph 2676, supra (re-enacted. paragraph $500, Revised Statutes 1901). could not receive the tax upon less than the entire sixty five claims, that being the least sub division appearing on the assessment roll If it determined to pay upon one or more of the eight SD raised and Co abandon the remainder, it would have to pay the tax upon the raise. together with the tax upon the en- tire sixty five claims as originally as sessed.
 The undisputed testimony diseases that these claims were non-conugu- GUS in instances whsch would have in- validated an original assessment. ex- cept for the return. The board in raising this assessment disregarded the original classification. which has been held good ss against the appellee solely by reason of it's return
 The board Of supervisors. sitting as a board of equalization, had no power | under paragraph 2654 Of the Revised Statutes of 1887. to seggregate fsom a tract Of land returned and assessed as ore parcel. a portion thereof and impose thereon an additional assess Hlent. without first determining that said tract was improperly assessed as a whole and causing such tract to be re-assesss6 and raised in subdivisions :, ia such manner as to preserve the light of the taxpayer to discharge tho len of taxes upon such of the several