Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1921-11-30
.REsCRP1s FROM
THE law COURT

the Law COURT |
Judgment for the Defendant in
Waldo County Case, City Of |
Belfast vs.. the Hayferd Block |
Company q e.. |
Rescripts were handed down BY the
law court Tuesday. In cases from the
counties Of waldo. Oxford and York.
Judgment 10 siven for the defendant
in the Waldo. county case Of the City
Of Belfast vs. the Hayford Block CO.
The rescript., which was drawn by;
Associate Justice George N, Hanson
Of Calais, ia tas, follcwg:e ,,f,s =
Action Of debt to recover thu, unpaid
balance Of taxes assessed against the
defendant corporation IN 1920, amount
ing to $24S,71, and before the court on
an agreed statement Of facts. From
the agreed facts 1t appears: vs. 's.t.
! l.. That the total Of Defendants
taxes for 1920 is $ll5al5. and pay
mcnts and discount amount to $9o474
leaving an unpaid balance Of s:4s.71. !.
2. That on the second floor Of de-
fcndant's building. assessed as Hay
! ford Block" is hall known as Bel
fast Opera House." which was leased
by the defendant to one Williamson
for term Of Ave years from ana
after: January l, 1919.
! 3. That on or about August 4. 1919.
said Williamson. with the written con-
sent of defendant, leased said hall TO
the city of Belfast for one year. The
principal object Of the city in taking
said lease was to provide an armory
for a military company. but 1t VAS also
used for other purposes for which the
city had a right to use It under its
lease. t-ft
j. 4. That on November ~. 1920. the
assessors made record OF attachments
containing the following item: Hay
ford Block Co. Sec. 81. Chapter 259 r.
S. To correct an error of the assessors
in making the original assessment r.
r. SASH" And in the list If abate-
mcnts given by the assessors to the
collector Is the following ITEM Hay
ford Block Co. Armory exempt. s24S.I,
15-GS of tax"
S. That no written application was
made to the assessors for this abate-
mcnt"
+ Held:
The assessors. in the foregoing rec
ord, state frankly that they make the
same ito correct an error of the as
SCISSORS in making the origina. assess
ment," and while recorded In the list
Of attachments. 1t Is not an abatement
within the meaning OF the statute re-
lating to attachments, but an amend.
ment correcting an error. The reason
for the correction is given in the
agreed facts, namely. that the second
floor Of the Hayford Block Co. building
was used as an armory. and there
fore exempt from taxation.
2. The action Of the assessors In
making the amendment Is authorized
by law. Section 10. Chap. 4, r. s.. pro-
v!ded that when omissions or errors
exist in the records or tax lists of
town or school district. or in returns
OF warrants for meetings thereof, they
shall be amended, on oath. according
to the fact. while in or after he ceases
to be in Office. by the OFFICER whose duty
1t was to make them correctly. II the
,original warrant Is lost or DESTROYED,
the return. or an amendment Of 1t.
may be made upon a cory thereof"
3. The reason assigned for maxi
Ing the amendment is ample, as tic
case falls within the meaning and in
tcntion Of Chapter ESQ. Public Laws
1917. section 81 thereof providing that
All armories. drill rooms, Offices.
headquarters offices. and target ranges,
Iowned by the State or by any nunici-
|pality, or by any organization Of the
National Guard. and all buildings and
lands leased by the State. or by any
municipality, or by an officer or or
ganization Of the National Guard, 70
be used as an armory. drill room,
headquarters Office. target range. or
for other military purposes. shall be
exempt from taxation for all purposes
during the period Of such ownership,
lease and USE"
4. 1t Is urged that no written ap-
plicaticn was presented for an abate-
ment by the defendant. but the posi-
ton is not well taken. because rs above
stated no abatement within the mean
ing Of the law has been made or at
tempted to be made A correction of
their own error was made by the, asses
sors and this under the statute they
were authorized to DO. .5r..t-
| OXFORD CASE.
In the Oxford county case Of Ernest
L. Pike VS.. Norman A. Smith, the ex
ceptions Of the plaintiff are overrulel.
The rescript was drawn by Associate
Justice George M. Hanson Of Calais.
This is an action of assumpsit to re-
cover. for labor Of the plaintiff and his
wife from November 20. 1916. to No
vember 20. 1917. at $3.50 per month,
The writ contained q Quantum meruit
count and a money. count.