Show EUREKA HILL LSES l I Must Pay Taxes on Net Proceeds Pro-ceeds to Eureka City 5 f c SHAFT WITHIN CITY LIMITS jtLtJ Supreme Court Decides That All Oro i Brought Up Through the Shaft Is Subject to City Taxation Whether the Oro Bodies Arc in the City Limits or Not Appeal din i d-in Case of Popp vs Daisy Gold Mining Mi-ning CompnnyO J Salisbury t1 Wins Stock Case f t tj The Supreme court yesterday handed 1 t tit i down three opinions in two of which r1 the lower court Fa alllrmed and in the 1r third the appeal Is dismissed In the cane of the Eureka Hill Mining di4I company appellant vs Eureka City the Judgment of the trial court was I tii affirmed in an opinion written by Justice Jus-tice Baskln and concurred in as to the result by Chief Justice Bartch and Justice I edrc Jus-tice Miner The action was to recover from Eureka City SG1517 levied and nr collected by the city as a tax on the I net annual proceeds of the companys rjj mine and paid under protest The xb1T plaintiff company owns five mining I claims part of which arc within tho j Ir city limits of Eureka City and part 4J P without The city assessment was made on the total net proc J ds of ore t taken out of the ground both within th and without the city limits which for tho year ending June 1 1890 was S1S1 477 and the tax amounted to 9223S ixstnrtL The company claimed that it should eatS only bo taxed by the city on the oro lv taken from the ground within the city iftltH limits The main shaft of the mine daItt through which all the ores were uAiitir brought to the surface was within then the-n iVt city limits and the trial court found ns a conclusion of law that the net t 4 proceeds within and without the city kBILtL of Eureka are taxable at the place liatij where they are taken to the surface I n1hi through the main shaft and gave Judg nocd I mcnt for the defendant which Is now nfflrin affirmed I |