Show THE TAX CASE Increase May be Collected for Territorial Purposes But Judge Zane Rules that it Nay Not Va Taken from the Taxpayer of the County In the Third District court yesterday tho case of VV H Sherman and others against Leonard G Hardy to show cause why the collector should not be enjoined from collect col-lect taxes upon the increased assessment of 10 per cent fixed by the territorial board of equalization camqup fore hearing In thecomplaint the plaintiffs sat up that on Sept 1 the county court delivered to the collector the tax lists of the county duly made out for the collection of taxes After some 16000 tax receipts had been issued is-sued or about Sept 17 the territorial board met and increased the assessed value of real estate 10 per cent When this was done the collector handed over the tax duplicate to the county clerk who proceeded pro-ceeded to revise the lists increasing in-creasing tho tax for county and county school purposes on the increase made by the board They claimed that sufficient notice had not been given by the sounty court and further Dint the act of the territorial board was void because the increase was mode after September 1 when the tax lists were bylaw by-law delivered to the collector and further that it was void because numerous persons had paid their tax and held receipts in full issued before the increased assessment was made Tho case was areued by Judge Sutherland Suther-land for tbe taxpayers and Judge Marshall Mar-shall for the board of equalization Judge Zane in rendering his decision said that on September 17 the territorial board of equalization raised the assessed value of unimproved real estate 10 percent per-cent Upon that assessment is a tax fixed by law of 5 mills for territorial purposes and 4 mills for county and county school purposes Tho territorial board limited lim-ited the increased assessment to the 5 mills territorial tax and when the county board took action upon the notice of the increased assessment assess-ment they included the tax of 4 mills for county and county school purposes making mak-ing a tax of 9 mills upon the increased assessment as-sessment The tax of 5 mills for territorial purposes upon the increased assessment is valid but the tax of 4 mills for county and county school purposes is invalid The effect of tho decision that the tax for county and county school purposes must be levied upon Lynchs orlgindl assessment as-sessment but the territorial tax of 5 mills may be collected upon the increased valuation valua-tion made by the board The county revenue rev-enue is lopped off 16000 by the decIsion but an appeal will at once be taken to the I supreme court |