The Caledonian-record. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1920-current, 1922-11-28

rupted passage so fat as possible
The plaintiff was reQness2d by
the listers of Brattleboro to make
and file a tax inventory of its
property in Brattleboro on April
1, 1919. end such inventory was
executed and filed. The inven-
tory specified that the Champlain
Realty Co. was the owner of 1900
cord. of pulp wood situated in the
town of Brattleboro on the West
River and its banks, but that saiG
pulp wood was not taxable by the
town of Brattleboro but was wood
{ in transit in interstate commerce.
Nevertheless, according to the re-
ccra, the 1900 cords of pulp wood
was appraised at $4,000 and the
tax assessed thereon at $4S4.50,
which the plaintiff evers was paid
urdel protest.
Ii is claimed in behalf Of the
petitioner that the Supreme Court
o. the State of Vermont erred in
two particulars, namely: First, in
holding that the pulp wood taxed
by the Town of Brattleboro was
not in the course of interstate
transportation while detained in
| the boom at Brattleboro; second,
in holding that the pulp wood in
question was subject to local tax
atior by the said Town of Brat
tlcboro.
Briefly summarized, the argument
in behalf of the petitioner is this:
THE wood in question was in
interstate transportation at The
time of its taxation by the Town
OF Brattleboro and was exempt
from taxation by said Town.
"The Findings of Fact of che
Nindham County Court are the
basis of the judgment in the Wind
ham County Court and of the
/ judgment in the Supreme Court of
! Vermont and are conclusive in the
Supreme Court of Vermont and
here.
"The decision of the Supreme
/ Court of Vermont Is erroneous and
contrary to the Findings of Fact
and contrary to law.
"The payment of an Illegal tax
under protest and a suit in general
assumpsit with specifications to
recover back the tax, is the well
! settled remedy in Vermont for the
recovery of taxes so paid.
"The judgment of the Supreme
/ Court of the State of Vermont
should be reversed"
"The findings of Fact clearly es-
J tablish," it is contended by The
/ petitioners counsel, that when
| this wood started on its journey
from the head waters of the West
/ River in Vermont, its destination
was Hinsdale, New Hampshire, anc
i Brattleboro, Vermont, and that ii
Wa the petitioners intention to
! float the wood down the West Riv-
el tc the Connecticut River where
, the West River empties into the
Connecticut River to petitioners
mill at Hinsdale where it was to be
held by means OF a log boom I'M
til it was rossed. They also estab-
lsh that this interstate journey
was interrupted and the wood de
tanned in the boom at Brattleborc
solely because of the undrivablt
condition of the Connecticut River
when the wood arrived there, the
waters of the Connecticut being Al
that time so high and so filled witt
floating ice and debris, and its cur
rent so swift, that the interstate
transportation of the wood had t
be temporarily interrupted unit
the Connecticut became driVable
The wood was therefore in thu
course of interstate transportation
and the subject of interstate com
mcrce and its temporary detention
] in the town of Brattleboro was
I detention of necessity caused b,
the condition of the Connectlcu
River which made it impossible u
continue the safe transportation o
the wood at the time. 1t was no
detained for the benefit and con
yenience OF the owner in any way
TIE interruption of the woods in