Bisbee daily review., 1914-04-12

Board of Equalization in the value Of the mining claims was not based upon any information or evidence had or obtained by them. but was made ar bitrarily and capriciously and for the purpose of imposing upon the plain tiff an unjust share of the burden of taxation. The sum of S14l33.12 sol paid by the plaintiff 10 the county for the tax levied upon the original assessment. which the appellee had rendered. was accepted by the County Treasurer and ex officio tax collector. Ion account of any moneys which might ultimately be determined as due from said company for it's tax for said year. An appeal was taken by Cochise County from this decree of the District Court The Supreme Court of the Territory on said appeal reversed the decree of the District Court. The Supreme Court of the Territory on said appeal reversed the decree of the District Court. and re- manded the case for new trial. Sub seuuently to the rendition Of his de- T zona an effort was made to comDro- mise the claim of the county, and an
 agreement of compromise was en- tered into. under authority of a res- olution of the Board of Supervisors
 adopted July :. 1904. whereby the
 Copper Queen Company agreed to pay. and did in fact pay. the further sum of S5.661.44 in full settlement of all taxes for the year 1901. There upon the injunction suit was dis. missed by the appellee. This sum of s5,661.4i. SO paid to the county under compromise agreement, has been ever since retained by the county. Sub sequently a proceeding in mandamus was instituted against the tax collect or of Cochise County to compel him 10 commence suit against the Copper Queen Company for the collection of 1901. upon the ground that the com promise SO made was unauthorized and void The Supreme Court of Ari- zona held. in the mandamus suit. that the Board of Supervisors had no au- thority to compromise said tax, and present suit for the collection of the tax and enforcement of the penalties provided by statute was instituted pursuant to the said order in the man. damus case.
 The testimony at the trial of this case was undisputed that the raise made by the County Board of Equal. lzation in the assessment of said eight patented mining claims was not based upon any evidence as to the value of the claims so raised and that 1t was in fact arbitrary. It was also estab- lished by the uncontradicted evidence that certain of the patented mining claims which were thus raised in value by the Board of Equalization were assessed far in excess of their full cash value e ...F
 The tax being then unpaid. the tax collector turned in the delinquent list. On this list appears the prop erty of the defendant company as six tvfive patented mines. containinR 636 acres, valued en masse at $3.1s000 for the real estate and $55,431.OO for the improvements thereon; and also an additional list or statement which shows the several. amounts in which the valuation of eight of said mining claims were increased by the Board of Equalization. giving the amounts of the increase, but not giving either the original valuations of the said eight mines or the total valuation of them or any of them as increased.
 Under the law of 1903 the property thus delinquent was carried into the back tax books of that year; and 1t
 is for the foreclosure of the Terri. tory's lien for taxes on the different
 pieces of real estate thus appearing
 in the back tax book that this suit
 is brought. The back tax book, put
 in evidence, showed the property of
 the defendant company. the total val
 uation of s3,S33,034.76; the total
 taxes $122, 2,65709; the amount paid on
 account, s23 ,265.76; balance due, $99.
 39l.33; and in enumerating the sev
 eral tracts and parcels of land thus
 remaining unredeemed, 1t gives six
 ty-fve mining claims. containing 63t
 acres; valued en masse at $3.1s0.00
 improvements thereon $55, ,i31.00. and ! mentions by name sixtyfour claims ] It gives the same number of acres fol the list named therein as is giver in all the other lists. and also con
 tains all the other valuations for req
 estate and Improvements. It giyei ] the list of the increased valuations O r the several mining claims and i'm provements which were increased b. 3 the board. but gives no total valua ) ton of said separate pieces of prop
 erty. after the addition of such in { crease.
 l Neither the complaint in this cas- l, nor the assessment roll, nor the de { linquent tax list discloses what tn !. total assessed valuation of any ir - dividual piece of real estate amount 1 ed to or what was the amount O l taxes due on any of these separat [ mining claims or pieces of real ei ,- tate.
 D It was shown by the testimony c | the Assessor that there were som Don ,,,s,t,n nIosp.. In ~,