| Show ASSESSOR IS A ACCUSED BY SUGAR PEOPLE F False lse l Alleged to I Have Been Made by Parsons DECLARE TAX IS AN UNJUST ONE i Also That State Law Lav and F Federal Fed Fed- deral d- d eral cral Constitution Is Violated Charges Charses that tha A. A IT II Par Parsons county assessor or mado a false also asse assessment ment ov over n against property of or the Utah Idaho Sugar u ar company compan and that W V W. W Barton Darton tr treasurer because of or this sent an excess tax notice of or to the tho company arc are mado made In a asuit asuit asuit suit filed flied yesterday In tho the Third district district district dis dis- court Defendants ore Salt Lake county count W IV y W. W Barton Darton A. A II H. Parsons C. C F. F Stillman Still- Still man William 13 Hughes Hushes and Joseph S S. Lindsey the tho latter three commissioners commission commission- ers of or Salt Lake county count and M 31 C C. Iverson Iver- Iver son Ion county auditor lver-I lver Tho The complaint charges that when the plaintiff wont went to P Parsons and Inquired i what property alleged to bo he unde- unde scribed the tho r s facetiously replied i that Ho hid hel not yet cl christened the the same game or that It was Invisible In golddust golddust gold dust clust floating down the River lUver Snake which ultimately ultimate had found it Its way Into the coffers of the plaintiffs plaintiff's treasur treas treas- U ur ury ry M What hat Company Tho The company claims that tho the only property per personal mixed ur or real subject subject subject sub sub- to taxation which It possesses In InS S Salt lt Lake county count Is valued at a total with Improvements of or arid and that at the time of or the assessors assessor's val vali neither tho assessor or the treasurer claimed the tho company compan possessed possessed possessed pos pos- an any other property In Salt Lake Co county u n ty It Is in then lion alleged that a further valuation val val- Mas as IS given shen the company compan of or iso placed on Intangible property of tho West rest Jor Jordan an factory facton and anel that no further description of or the property was gl en glennd nd also a further notice of ofal valuation valuation val val- of placed on personal property of or tho company In the Jordan school district without a further de description description IC- IC of or lu hf- hf property The plaintiff avers It cannot tell nor can cnn anyone anono toll what propel property ty Is In Intended Intended intended In- In tended the company com denies owning any property In Salt LaJ Lake Lako o except that origInal originally Inal listed and asks that tho the taxes and assessments on th the the- be bo declared void old an and unlawful nn and l that tho the defendants or their agents be en enjoined enjoined enjoined en- en joined pending tho action from collecting collecting col cal tho the tax Protested d to Commissioner The complaint furth further r alleges that tho the plaintiff appeared before the board of or equalization composed of or the county commissioners on Ju Juno o 8 to protest tho the false raise assessment and d demanded cancellation cancellation cancel cancel- l lation of or tho assessment of or and and tax tac levi s of or and on samo same on the tho grounds that they the vero void old because of or Insufficient insufficient clent description It Is claimed no evidence was given I en at nt tho the hearing to dispute the Iho claims of the plaintiff and that the company save gave avo fI figures ures at the hearing bearing of or it Its to total total to- to tn tal valuation total ns assets l 15 net worth of or the corporation with tho the par value of ot tho the Issued stock of or tho the company 36 but hut that only a small part of or the company's compans business ln In Salt Lake was sas n count county What Official Say SOY The assessor said aid al 1 at the hearing ac according tic tic- cording to the complaint that ho he had obtained InformatIon that tho the total as assessable as- as property properly of or tho the company In Inthis Inthis inthis this and other states slates was of or an asses asses- able total valuation of ot but since Its corporate te property was more than the board concluded the company compan did not hear Its just property property prop prop- erty shares share of f the taxes and held that I the tho above tax levy y on tho the 10 was sas Just ovel the plaintiffs plaintiff's ob objections objections objections ob- ob and declined the valuation valuation val val- ration with the tho result th that t the tho tax levies wore sent soon after Tho The company compan claims that no other property properly of Wee like kind or or de description Is 19 taxed In lu Salt Lake county and arid that the tax taz Is 15 unjust discrimination against the I plaintiff contrary to the tho state laws and andin andin I in violation of or tho the fourteenth amendment amend amend- I ment mont of or the tho constitution of ot the United St States tes I Where here Factories u Arc Are The Tho suit states that tho the company compan owns sugar factories at nt L Lohl Lehi hl Garland l Els Payson P Spanish Fork West rest Jordan all Jn Jr Utah l Idaho aho Falls Blackfoot Blackfoot Black Black- foot Coot Sugar City and Shelley Idaho Grants Pass Ore North Yakima and Wash and also owns 51 per cent of or the tho stock of or the Nevada Nevada- Utah Sugar SUg-ar company compan Attorneys for fr the company are Young Youns- ft Young King Sibley Ible The complaint Is signed b by W. W T T. assistant secretary and treasurer of or the company compan |
