Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-01-16
4PPU'' WITHDRAWS
ONE TAX APPEAL
Lets County Boards Valuation
of Market Street Prop
erty Stand.
HAD BEEN REDUCED $500
A FOOT; $1,000 ASKED
conopany's Attorney Severely
Arraigns Assessors Method
Of Procedure.


Before the state Board for tbs
Equalization of Taxes, sitting IN tni'
city today, the Prudential Insurance
Company withdrew its appeal IRON
the assessment levied against lis
oronertv at 1877 Market street. The
appeal on this piece was one OF
number which the company has
made. -.
The property in question, which
has a frontage of twenty feet on
Market street, was originally as
zsssed nv the local commissioners 81
s. 900 a front foot The company ap-
naales to the county board to have
the amount reduced to $1,000 a lron'
foot, After considerable testimony
and argument the board cut Sooo
front foot from the amount, reduc-
ing the assessment to $500 a troht
foot. The amount now stands.
In withdrawing its appeal the COM
nanv through Edward D. Dufbeia'
as counsel. declared that 1t was done
uereIv TO expedite matters, and to do
away with needless testimony regard
ing Market street values. IL IS the
only Market street property OF the
eon,nanv on which an appeal was
made. The remaining assessments IN
dispute are on Broad street proper
ties
IN opening his real estate appeal
Mr.. Duffield criticised and seVereiy
arraiened the County Board members
for the manner in which they eonsid-
ered the question. In passing on the
question. Mr.. Duffield declared that
they did the most absurd thing that
any tax board, to his knowledge. ever
aid He complained of the manner
in which the county board sought 70
aouaiize the '.Pru" assessment by
raising that Of the surrounding prop
critics.
New Assessment Necessary.
Mr. puffield declared further that
the Prudential in seeking to show
that II had been Disseminated
! eainst called the attention Of the
countv hoard to the assessments
made on properties adjoining and
directly across the street. This was
done. he said, merely as an illustra-
f,on Instead of considering 1t as
such, the DOaTu. llc saAN'
that the local assessors had erred
and had underassessed these proper
ties. If this was true, which he said
he doubted, Mr. Duffield held that an
entire new assessment should be
made nv new assessors. The only
question to be decided, he held. was
whether the local board had or had
not assessed the Broad street prop
critics at their true values.
went over the same ground that
he covered before the county board,
declaring that the Prudential COM
nanv had been assessed at nearly
twice the amount levied against prop
erfy adjoining and across the street.
Mr.. Duffield and City Attorney
Borgs. who represented the city, were
unable to agree on the stipulation of
facts with regard to the assess
nent levied by the city against the
deferred dividend fund of the COM
bany, and the matter had to be laid
over. Mr.. Boggs would not take as
facts" some of the statements Mr..
|Duf1eld sought to make in his stipu-
lation. A date will be set later in the
day by the board for the taking Of
testimony in this matter.
Tax Assessor John Howe was the
first witness called by the Prudential.
He merely told of the manner in
which the board made its assess
rnents Commissioners Swayne,