The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-03-07

have been arguing all morning
namely they have ~ right 90 this
hearing nH to- the benefits and this
evidence shows thcy have never had
that lu other words they have
right 10 n hearing sometime, some
whore during the course Of the pro-
ro,dIuRH lending up 10 the imposi-
iInu of the tax upon their property
and 10 determination by the city
com wIssluuors Of the amount of
their benefits The supreme court
hl3 held iu the Nitche case that thnt
matter 90 provided for In the char
ter and 10 ig now conceded by couu-
sol that such a. hearing is provided
fnr Under the evidence iu this
case, taking &c. in tho light ~ the
rules governing demutror8 20 the
evidence, tho court would have TO
say TINT viewing II iu ita most fsv-
ornhlo light such a hearing has never
been had.
II i4 true that in tho notice of the
hearing this notice was given: AN
owners OF tho nbuttluR property
benefited hy said assurimonts uud
other property liable 10 assessment
arc hereby notified that all matters
affecting such improvements ana All
hcuoGp tD the property thereby.
and my claims or Ohicctiona 10 the
assessment ns above set forth, shall
boz flied in writing" and 20 on. u is
truo that notice was given but ~ iH
likewise true, " this evidence in tho
case ip To hc taken in iig most fuv-
orlblo hight no such u hearing was
over had Ia fact, that hearing was
denied on the theory that the matter
Uf tine benefits could not bo then
considered wv the board and that
. the only matter that could be- con-
ldprrd was the matter Of apporiion-
mout4 ON that theory " no other.
/ this demurrer would have 10 be over
rulod,
Mr. Pratt. Before the court ad-
/ ipurua the sustaining of tho dcmur-
rrr interpreted hy the defendant,
| GrIggs. is entirely proper iu my
/ opinion uud the record might show
| that the plaintiffs dismiss tho cause
| ~ action Hg To- the defendant,
| GrIgRa Ilo can be- eliminated from
| g. Ito hud no net to perform
/ which could be- restrained by any in
| Junction and I do not think ne was
| a proper party to the suit,
Charter Not InyolNcd
Mr. Paul. one OF tho principal
| pueatlone here is as 20 the construc-
! tluu to DO placed upon this city char
ter understand that tho ruling
uf tho court is simply that there has
| been prima facic case made by tho
| plaintiffs that compcls tho court
to UvCrrulo the demurrer Of all but
Grlggs upon the theory that tho
, court viii hear evidence upon what
. irauspircd at that time, or is tho
court going into tho question as TO
the validity OF this charter
The Court | am not going into
/ the question OF tho validity Of the
charter because In my Judgment tho
| charter liz sufficient In itself. aq u
/ gives tho taxpayer all ~ those prlvi-
lcgos and rights which he is entitled
To under the 1ith amendment.
Mr. Paul; I'm other words. a. !
understand you. ~ II were shown as
II has boon shown In this case that
che charter gives ample opportunity
for hearing upon tho question Of
/ benefits, that In that case tho char
| ter Is valid and tho hearing need not
be had necessarily before the i'm.
! provcmcnt begins.
The Court: think tho law in
the case ~ VOL set out In Hancock
W. Muskogec. whore the supreme