Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1915-11-12
PROBATE JUDGES COMPETENT
TO INTERPRET LAW.
Want No Suggestions from Attorney
General or Tax Commissioner

l. .
That the judges of the probate courts
of Connecticut would yield their judi
/ cial= prerogatives to none. and in "a
conflict with the attorney general of
the state would abide by their own
opinions, was the attitude taken by the
Connecticut probate assembly at its
quarterly meeting in the Hartford pro-
bate court room this week when a
motion to appoint a committee to con-
fer with the tax commissioner con-
corning disputed points in the new nj
heritance tax law was overwhelmingly
defeated.
Several of the judges were frank in
their statements that communications
from the attorney generals office and
from the state tax comnissioner on the
way the. law should be interpreted
quickly found their way into the waste
basket. The limit of the controversy
was reached. Judge ellison Of New Ha-
ven said, when he received a notice
from the tax commissioner asking that
he attend to certain collections of
taxes which had not been paid. He
said his office for one would not be.
made q collection agency for the state.
The motion, to confer with the state
officials metswith opposition as several
Of the judges stated at once that they
were capable of deciding the law for
themselves and would be bound by no,
ruling of the attorney general or of
Tax Commissioner Corbin, who was a.
layn1an. :, -sss ~
Another point in dispute arose from
letters from the tax commissioners Of
nee wanting to know why various APP
praiSals were lower than the property
had been assessed in. the town lists
Such communications were not proper
for the Judge to take up or for the,
administrator or the appraisers to an
swer. it was held but the right of the
commissioner to order a new appraisal
any time he was not satisfied was not
doubted. - q
The waste basket was designed as
the proper receptacle for all letters Of
the nature mentioned. 1t was con-
tended also that the function Of the
attorney general was to advise the
state officials and not probate Judges;
that he could properly advise The tax
commissioned, but his opinion was not
binding on any probate Judge, ~ -
Judge ellison Of New Haven Slig-s
gested settlement of the matter In
his own court by having the attorney
general appear and have an appeal
taken to- the superior court as provided
blythe statutes and hoped some of the
disputed points. would be cleared fup In
this, way. = y = aes5 ~ -
Judge Marvin of Hartford presided
over the meeting and Judge 09Brien-1
of EMeriden acted as secretary After
a two hours, session, adjournment was
taken to- tho. City club for luncheon,
Out Of the 113 probate districts of i
Connecticut. the following judges att
tended: Wakeman, Fairfield; Post, He
bron;s Vergason. Marlborough; Wood
man, Bethel. Munyon, Thompson; Elk.
Waterpury;. Miller. Bridgeport; Hub
Kendall, CRANKY; Summer, Andover::
sCaulkins, Old Lyme:j Child, Wood
stock; Cooper. Sufield; Atwood,
Brooklyn; Roraback. Torringt5n; Car
rier, East Hampton; WNoodford. Avon.
Fuller. Soners; Flood, Portland;
fret; Hinckley. Stonington: Pratt, Say
brook; Fahey. Ellington; Wood, Nam
chester; Fowler, Endeid; Sullivan,
Canton; Curtiss, Thomaston; GilSon.
New Haven: Marvin, Hartford: Rob-
ertson, Coventry; KELSEY, Branforc;
OsBrien; Mer!den; Baxter, Nhussstuck;
Martin. wallingford; Buell. Colchester,
and Kneeland. Lebanon.