El Nuevo mexicano., 1919-10-23

Eticea, Instruments and publications
which must be made through q legal
Inewspaper. While it Is not stated
that the publication Of the notices,
Instruments and publications speci-
Flied In Section 2 should be made IN
Ia legal newspaper nb defined In
Chapter s3 OF the Laws Of 1919, yet
It is apparent that II was the intent
|of the Legislature when they used
the term legal newspaper that 1t
meant such a paper as Is defined in
Chaptef ag.
sNe do not find any provision re-
quiring that the proceedings OF the
board OF county commissioners should
be published in a legal newspaper rs
defined Ia Chapter 4S, therefore, any
paper OF general circulation pub
lished within the county qualified 10
publish the proceedings OF the board
loo county commissioners OF sad
county. so 1t Is our opinion that
the publication OF the proceedings OF
1.-The board of county commissioners
of Taos county in your paper, even
II has not been published foT
the period OF time required by Chap
ter 43 in order to come within the
definition OF a legal newspaper as
is therein set forth, is legal
EX.SOLplER ENTITLED TO
EXEMPTION FOR FAMILY
October 16, 1919.
"Mr, ]. Albert Cloman. County AS
SCISSOR, Alamogordo, N. N.
Dear Sir: Answering your letter
lof October 10, in which you ask sew
eral questions relative 10 the soldiers
exemption act, we beg to advise
"WhereAa husband and wife are
both on tax rolls, and husband does
not own enough property to cover
This exemption, the remainder OF his
levempti0n may come out OF the
wife's property IL they are living to-
Igether and occupying the same as
their homestead.
ut Is our opinion that an ex-
soldier Is entitled TO an exemption
of 1900, II he Is the head Of a family,
in addition to the $4,000 exemption
provided for In Chapter 65, Laws
lof 1919,
seWe do not believe that where .
soldiers property Is listed on the tax
Trolls in partnership with other par
ties, he can claim exemption on this
property under the soldiers ezemp-
ltion act. however, this is a matter
Impon which an opinion cannot be
given with any degree OF certainty
Jas to Its correctness. because the
wording Of the act is not such as e
Indicate the intent Of the legisla
ture in this regard. 1t may prop
eriy become a question for the su
lpreme court to decide and It would
appear to us that the best policy Il
pursue at present would be not K
extend the exemptions in such cases
and IL the claimant Is not satisfied
he may institute legal proceedings
BY which the decision Of the su
preme court might be obtained.
s'The amount Of the exemption 4
primarily taken out Of the homo
stead property belonging to the hus
band. but It may be taken out .
1.-THE homestead property belonging e
the wife where they are living TO
gether and occupying the same. Thu
does not preclude the claimant iron
designating other property owned b.
him from which the exemption ma.
be deducted.
aThe act makes 1t the duty Q
leyery assessor annually to make
llist Of the persons entitled 70 es
liemption under the same and TO max
1.-THE deduction equal TO the amour
OF the exemption out OF the home
stead property Oh either the HUSBAND
Ilof wife. Unless he specifically *
~uuested that 1t be deducted frof
an..4. rrAnAetv Haafauafnd and oHue