Smyrna times., 1927-03-16
M ASSESSORS REINSTATED
H A SUPERIOR COURTS RULING
arp RODY REvERSES ACTION
~ rryT COUNTY LEVY COURT
! Handing Down Opinion See
10 Substantial Negiecl u Du'y

IN Their lndlNiuual Sases
u NE members Of the Kent
IN 7 Board Of Assessment, who
'I: s..n removed from Office by the
"A conr+ because Of alleged irregu-
n 4os n the performance Of their
n. ~. are back in Office following a
.n,,,.I s,< Of the Levy Courts action by
/, ,' Srnerior Court Friday afternoon.
! Is,r,an B. Cooper, Republican Of
s.,ToId. William NJ. Hughes, Demo
I. # FELTON,, and Thomas Moore,
s,rnbliean of Magnalia, constitute
\ rornty Board of Assessment.
.i,s, Rodney and Rice handed down
+ 4 opiDion which reversed the Levy
,rt's action and reinstated the
s,d Judge Rodney read the
,ctby opinion. The only province
m Superior Court was the affirm
van reversal of the Levy Court. In
Finding, the opinion says: "In the
.,ori submitted to Us there is no
n substantial neglect Of duty on
i i. mart of the members of the Board
/ 1 Assessment as would justify this
i rnr invoking the extreme remedy
rnoval from Office. The order of
~mal issued by the Levy Court is
w5v reversed, and under the terms
1 sctiOn 4, volume 81, Laws of Del
nr the members of the Board of
xsment are RENTED to their
V9 Offices" The Levy Court had
hired three particulars in remov-
Y ae board. First, that it did make
nges in the assessment after the
zsment had been posted by in
! asrg the same without giving the
3 nsfected five days notice as re-
NY law; second, that the Board
izssment, or its members, made
zs on the assessment record and
zAOrd Of Kent county after the
4 Ei had turned over the books to
q zkvy Court to apportion the taxes
4 b after the Levy Court had in turn
aTered the books to the tax col
1r; third, the Levy Court charged
{ zt the Board Of Assessment did not
ess all property at its actual value
s;noney.
SaperiOr Court Takes Up the Charges
N the opinion of the upper court,
IEah took up the three particulars
charged in the reverse order, it is set
0ra that there is no testimony in
Be record to sustain the third con-
zhOn, unless indeed any change
nae IN the amount of an assessment
u itself proof that one of the two
cures was an assessment at other
n the actual value in money. "We
not think however," said the court,
at change in an assessment is
Y Indication Of an attempt to adopt
Aaer principal. Such change may
bona fide attempt to assess, and
only menas Of assessing, at its
4 value, and refusal to change
assessment might be in itself the
/ violation Of the requirement that
assessment be at the true value.
are also convinced that no
DAnd Of removal exists under the
ad the evidence concerning the
Sa point raised. 1t will be at
apparent that this second ground
AnoVal cannot be based upon the
Ie 70 perform the duties of the
4 which was the reason assigned
ne Levy Court" In the remain
'a1se for removal, cited by the
!! VOart, the upper court in its
l'n' says in part: The Board of
@nent have sworn that they
I printed forms Of the notices to
~H and that it is their uniform
~l % send copy of such notice
Ssly taxable whose assessment is
faised. The Beard swears that
~leVe notices were actually
V 'nose parties named in the rec
IA" Nv also sworn that they did not
N, ~ mem, but no member of the
n + able to swear that any no
T. = me particular cases mentioned
IN record was, in fact, actually
NJ. NE are convinced that the
" = serving oft he notices pro
w IN the statute is an import
A,,a IsIter and that Assessment
ss,s lsuid keep a record of every
~. M y assessment acted on, to-
a 4 "ltn the manner of the service
H. ,a' nOuce' whether it be by per-
NJ. 'ervlce, registered mail or 9th
/ WA II may not be material to
] 'Ae Particular cases in which
b ~: wy Court contends that no no
ssD L given. There were six or
sa I sueh cases mentioned IN the
/ y ~ submitted to Us and several of
/ sp,,e s cases "a where buildings were
] es n.o y construction at the time
at M '.lg 4 q the original assess
III ne changer were made to
] d hiidin increased value caused by
/ n nngs. % We think we are cor
nt u sestlmating that the total
I tar,5i.ta H TAX paid BY all the object
] ss y NJ mentioned in the record
1 a4 - 20. Dy reason of the alleged
1 u ~ assessments without notice,
i N " " exceed fifty dollars
4 NJ Of Its Kind Ever Tried