Norwich bulletin., 1912-02-07
DANIELSON
Judge shumway Decides That Central
House and 5ernisr Saloons May
opsn-Rulss That Gordon A. Jshn-
stone is Not a Taxpsyer-Possible
Appeal in Eernier Case.

Following a decision fled Tuesday
by Judge Milton A. Shumway of the
superior court, the Central House
and the Amadee Bernier saloon will
reopen for business this wednesday,
morning, it was stated Tuesday after
noon. The granting of licenses to these
two places by the county commission
ers in November, after circumstances
had been made against them, and the
taking of appeals to the superior court
from the commissioners decisions,
and the later vacating of the appeals
by the commissioners on the ground
that Gordon A. tombstone, who made
the appeals, was not a taxpayer, taken
with later and various other compli-
cations has combined to make the
most interesting procedure of the kind
in the history of the town.
Judge Shumway's decision was on
the question as to whether or not
Gordon A. tombstone was a taxpayer,
arguments on the matter having been
made before the judge in Putnam last
week at a special session Of the supe-
rior court
stone is not a taxpayer in the town,
and it follows, therefore, that he had
no legal right to appeal Judge Shum-
way has ordered that the appeals in
both cases be abated and dismissed.
The memorandum of Judge Shum-
ways decision follows:
1.-THE word taxpayer as used in the
statute relating to intoxicating liquors,
Sec. 1887, Gen. Stat. 1902, excludes ey-
cry person who does not pay a tax
| upon real or personal property assess
ed on the grand list of the town in
which he resides. The statute regulat-
ing appeals from county commission
ers in granting licenses public Acts
1909, page 1850 limits the right of ap-
| peal to some taxpayer of the town in
which the business of selling liquor
! Is to be carried out. 1t is admitted
! that the appellant in these cases new
er paid a tax upon real or personal
! property in Killingly, and has never
| had any assessed on any grand list, as
| the term grand list is generally used.
| 1t seems also to be conceded by coun-
| sci that if the appellant was not a
| taxpayer within the meaning Of the
| law at the time he took his appeal,
I then the appeal should be dismissed.
| But it is contended by the appellant
| that the Fact that he handed to the
| assessors Of the town OF Killingly on
! November 1, 1911, a list of his taxable
| property containing a statement or de-
! scription of some real or personal prop
| erty in the town of Killingly on which
| he was liable TO be taxed, he, by that
! act, became taxpayer in the town Of
! Killingly. In view of the language OF
| the statute above quoted (Sec. $3.50
namely: That no one could be regard
| ed as q taxpayer who does not pay a
! tax on real or personal property, as
| sessed on the grand list Of the town;
| TO hold as claimed by the appellant
would be putting a construction on
| the statute wholly uRwaFranted In no
| case that has heen cited has this gem
! eral rule been questioned, viz, that
an assessment consists of two pro-
cesses-one, the listing of the person s
property TO be taxed; the other, the
| estimating the sums which which are
! to be the guide in the appertienment
Of the tax between those who are IL
able to pay It. Again, 1t has bbeen
held that AN assessment denotes the
| list and valuation of taxable property
| made by the proper officers for the
purposes of taxation There is some