Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-11-18

tons in the Franklin county tax case
of Inhabitants of Sandy River Plan
tation vs.. Weston Lewis and Josiah
s. Maxcy, both of Gardiner, and own
ers Of property in Sandy River Plan
tation. The constitutionality Of the
forestry district tax and the authority
Of the plantation assessors to assess
or collect any part of the forestry dis
trict tax. are among the questions in
Nolved in the exceptions.
The rescript, which was drawn by
Associate Justice George +. Haley of
Biddeford, is as follows:
This is an action of debt. to recover
taxes assessed against the property of
the defendants in the year 1910 by
the assessors Of Sandy River Planta-
ton, in which assessment is included
the forestry district tax for that year.
At the close of the testimony the
presiding justice directed a verdict for
the plaintiff. for the amount of the
tax sued for, and interest thereon from
the cate of demand, May 80, 1910.
In considering the exceptions it
should be remembered that this is an
action at law to recover the tax. and
not a proceeding seeking to enforce
2 forfeiture for its non payment, and
that an action for the recovery of
tax assessed will not be defeated By
any irregularity, but only by such
omission or defects as go to the iuris-
diction of the assessors. or deprive
the defendant of some substantial
right. or by some omission Of an es-
sentfal requisite to the bringing
of the action.
l. II is objected that there is no
evidence of the legal election or quail
l1cation of the assessors of said plan
tation for the year 1910. because the
book of record. which purported to
show their election. had been mutilat-
ed and pages. upon which the record
of the annual meeting for 1910 had
been attempted to be made had been
cut out, and the record introduced as
the record of that meeting was made
ir February. 1911
There is no evidence that the pages
cut from the record book was the rec
ord of the annual meeting. The legit-
innate inference is that the writing
upon the leaves cut from the book
vas done by daughter of the CLERK
in an attempt to make the record for
the clerk to sign. but he never signed
or attested it as the record 1t was
found To be contrary to the facts. or
wrong in some particulars. and then
the record that was Introduced in ev-
idenee was made as the record of the
annual meeting of 1910. and the clerk
testified at the trial that it was the
record of that meeting. made accord :
M 10 he Z.
by him. The fact that it was
not made until February. 1911, did
not affect its validity The clerk
could make the record of the meeting
at any time during the year follow
ing his election.
,. 1t is objected that the records of
the plantation do not show before
whom the alleged assessors qualified
as required by CHAPTER 4. Section %.
Revised Statutes. It was held in Hale
ct al VS.. Cushing, . Maine. 21S that
the statute requiring such a certifi-
cate To be returned and filed, was di-
rectory, and that case has been cited
with approval. although the same
point was not directly involved. in
burlington VS.. Dunning, II Maine.
176. Chapman VS. Inhabitants of
Limerick. 56 Maine, 800 and Farms
worth Co. VS.. Rand, 60 Maine. 10. and
is decisive of that objection.
8. IT is objected that the record
fails to show q legal qualification of
the assessors. The record states that
j. L. Clark was chosen first assessor
by ballet, and duly qualified. The rec
ORD states the same as to the other
Two assessors. except it states that
S. IT. Learned was chosen second as
SCISSOR and G. S. Marden third assess
or. The only act that either of them
could do, and should do, to qualify
them as assessors was to take the oath
of office. and the record says they duly
qualified.
We think the words of the record,
showing that they each, naming them,
duly qualified is Al least prima faeie
evidence that they We're sworn as re-
CURED by law, and nothing appear
ing in the case to overcome that pre-
sumption. that they were authorized
to perform the duties of assessors.
4. 1t is objected that the assessors
had no authority to commit the tax
es prior to June /. 1910, and the evil
ueHCe SHOWS tlidl tlleN were CpIlllnlt-
ted. April u 1910. Section so, Chapter
Sc, Public Laws of 1905, reads: I'm
July of each year said assessors shall
commit the same with a warrant in
thu. usual form TO the collector of tax
esS The law contemplates that when
the taxes are committed all things
have been done by the assessors to
complete the assessment. and the date
of the commitment TO the collector
has nothing to do with the validity
of the assessments. and To rule that,
by committing the taxes to the coll
lector before the date named in the
statute. rendered the assessment void,
woald he to hold that an act of the
assessors that had nothing to do with
.~swsw.S