Jasper County Democrat, Volume 6, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 April 1903 — THE THOMPSON TAX CASE. [ARTICLE]

THE THOMPSON TAX CASE.

Judge Howard Will Render His Decision Friday, May 8. Judge Howard of South Rend, came Tuesday to hear argument in the tax-ferret case of S. P. Thompson vs. the treasurer of Jasper county et al. This case, it will be remembered, is that where the tax-ferretsi the ex-auditor of Owen county at al, at the behest of “Honest Abe” in the closing days of the last campaign, placed or caused to be placed some $1,300 in alleged taxes on omitted property onjthe tax-duplicate against Mr. .Thompson. The latter sued to Have the treasurer enjoined from collecting the amount, and the evidence in the case was heard at the November term of court. On agreement of parties a long-hand transcript of the evidence was made for which $75 was allowed by the court, and argument was postponed to the April term. As Judge Howard had to go to Indianapolis Tuesday night and the parties desiring special findings andJ. F. Hanley for the tax-ferrets not having his copy prepared, it was agreed that Judge Howard should return again on May Bth to render his decision. The evidence in this case impressed one with the fact that all the property of Mr. Thompson which the tax-ferrets claimed as omitted had been assessed. The evidence of the plaintiff, that of his associates and attorneys who were present when the assessors made the assessments, his bankers and their bank records and that of the assessors now living who had made the assessments during the years it was claimed the sious occurred, all corroborated each other. For such a searching and thorough investigation of the private affairs of the plaintiff as was made in this case, the evidence was certainly remarkable, in that it all fitted in so closely and going to show that the personal property in question had been assessed. It was, too, from men of unimpeachable character and standing. While The Democrat has nothing to do with Mr. Thompson’s battles, it always likes to see fair play, and we want to say that the affairs of not one man in ten thousand who has doue the volume of business that he did during these years would bear so searching an investigation by experts and enemies. In this case, the contention, we believe, is that the assessors took the property at a lower assessment than they should, it being in the form of notes, and they were discounted according to the judgment of the assessor as to their value. It would seem from the evidence that about the only thing to be decided, is whether there was an omission or not by reason of the discounts allowed from the face of the notes. The decision of Judge Howard will be rendered one week from next Friday.