Show 11 TUT Il Ln INV AtID C rt cslon In Halter of Abating Supreme Taxes ol mum and Indigent Person COUNTY BOARDS 10 AUTHORITY TOREMIT Irhllltl CII nit t to 11 1100 Ighl Jur1 t UDIY c 011 TrI Tho SlIprcm court delivered nn 101 rjii nt opinion toby In tlio cos ot Ih It 11 of Utah ex rcl Morgan auditor MI Ironcln III < harJ Jr l > iato ou Armstrong et nl Die count board of e iHiilUitlon ov rrullns the demurrer lo the petition for a writ ol prohibition writ Isvie ro oral onltrtns < that a training n bllulutly turller Iroecod Ing In rho nltmpt of lh cllunt boon to rnlt or abat tho In IIC Int I < llollc Innrra or IrUlnent iicr Ion un cr section 2573 of tho HevlBeel SI itutM whldl la InlJ tu 10 null and I Thi pnxwalnH wn commented ime time aso liy Htate Auelltor Hlch ards who petitioned fol a writ of prohibition pro-hibition to iirohlblt Hie county board ft oQirallzatlein from remlltinil or nlut jng the taxm referred to to on mount not clceeellnK til for the current jiur The position taken jy Auditor Klch aI las Ihat tho alaluto wn ullcon lItutionol IInd that tlio 1 IIture hl1 not tho pawer umler the CoiMtl lutlon to exomlf IIerty rro loxo el Is exrety ex n except lion tnptol < I 1 > Jon Irtul 01 Ihll emsUlu J-on and th II lhe remJIlInl 0 1IIUnl vlrlulIy nn exemplllII oJ Defendattta rOIlLedc that If the I Itomelll oC a lox was III oJecl them the-m na on exenllIlI Ih INard liiVna authority to abate Th quollolt ror tlto courL to paoa was Whclher IIn ablcntL 011 UIO taxable roicrt > which la I oIVIlo < 1 h nil IIIIne Inlltm Idiotic or Indtl < enL I prvn Is I prihlltlted by the Ktate eon atblullon as bdllg 00 > xemlUon DC irot ortj Crm t lxaUan 1 hid I noL ncludeel wPtllln the 1101 oC cnmlUona ontalneil Hlf lunltmelliallaw Hter reviewing Ihe law IIntl the natllIHlon UI < courl 111 tht tho alatule I In lIr vlolntton or Ih Ootltulloll and 1Irlo old fhe cuurt fUrl her llnili that n nlmllii ue lion W Iolcoro thL upromo coUll oC California inl HI > led In 11 eal VI Conclelellni the cout lIays In sirlvlr t Ih oonclmlon Iht Ihe ovlIIIn of tho statute In Ontro rsy I null and void we were lIot un mindful of ths fact that tho question ivhetaer an inattmtnt of the leglila lure I antd b ciusu ot Its repugnanc I I the Oonstltutlon Is I n > naj one 01 lIIuh delicacy and In n doulitful eae rhould ehiom It enr Ie derldol In the seldatlvi Whn however Ihe mlll I ollvillcool oC th uneunlllu 1I0nollt or 110 law Ihe Iu hlch devolve upon the courl tn d < laro II 0 Ix IlIIpralllo eCn wher a In Utl rii > Ihe BUUiU nppenrH to l In ciu noniace with I Juntlce anil humanity That the law limit would lie litrolleemt nn be of no Mill In thla IMM becau II rrect I1n1 uperatlon oulol b 10 oxfrnpt nmi Icrt > nciln t tho mandate if the fundnmentnl llvv We art at the opinion thit the demurrer de-murrer to the tutltlon mum he l overruled over-ruled nnd tint n writ of prohibition nt l88uo I rlralnln IIb80IuM rur 1 thrr pn eedlnu nnder the clllue of tho ttlule lu rein declared voll y JulIc mrlch dellvrl 110 opinion c id In by CMtf Ju I l a nil Justice trerhlr |