Jasper County Democrat, Volume 6, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 November 1903 — TAX-FERRET CASE. [ARTICLE]

TAX-FERRET CASE.

Demurrer Sustained and Amended Complaint Filed.—Decision Next Term. The case of Simon P. Thompson as a citizen and tax-payer, on relation of the county of Jasper, vs. Fleener & Carnahan and the commissioners of Jasper county, came up for hearing on defendants’ demurrer Monday afternoon before Judge Nye of Winamac. Defendants were represented by J. Frank Hanley of Lafayette and C. E. Mills of this city. The opening argument of defendants was by Mr. Hanley, and he made a very able presentation of his side of the case, showing that the supreme court had held these 50 per cent contracts legal and not exhorbitant for the labor necessary in searching the records of the various counties and states to uncover sequestered property not listed for taxation, and that the complaint was therefore not good; that the county assessor had no right to go outside his own cqunty to uncover any omitted taxable and therefore the ferrets were performing a work that was outside the county assessor’s duties and which could not be performed by such officer. Judge Thompson, in opening for the county, first stated what the duties and scope of authority of county commissioners were; that they were only the agents of the county (the people) to perform the duties imposed upon them by the legislature in the transaction of county business; that there was no denial that the contract —or the first two contracts, rather — were not legal; but that this case was brought to secure an interpretation of said contracts, to have the last or third contract declared void, and for a judgment or order against the ferrets for the amount they had been overpaid on the old contracts. Judge Thompson’s argument was one of the strongest pleas ever delivered in this court, and its logic was irresistible. He pointed out that the contracts stated that the ferrets should receive for their labor one-half of all sums collected through their efforts and turned into the county treasury, not county treasurer; that county treasury as defined by eminent authorities was a place where county funds were paid in, kept, and expended; that the county treasurer only collected taxes or funds for the township, city, school and state in transit to the proper and respective treasuries; that the scope of county commissioners’ powers extended only to county funds, and that in contracting to pay the ferrets “onehalf of all sums collected and paid into the county treasury ,” said contract must be interpreted to mean one half of the amount belonging to the county, instead of one-half of the total amounts of all funds paid to the county treasurer, as had been done. Judge Thompson said that as a result of raking up old estates, pursuing the widows and orphans and the aged, infirm and insane, a total for all funds of about SIO,OOO had been paid in to the county treasurer, of which the county treasury received about $1,500, and that the ferrets’ share of said collections under the contract was therefore only $750. Instead of this, however, they had been paid $5,000. He said that the contracts had been heralded as a great boon to the taxpayers of the county, when as a matter of fact they, were out of pocket several thousand dollars on the deal; that the commissioners had promised the people bread and had given them a stone. He admitted that the county assessor had no authority to go outside of his own county to look up sequestered property until 1899, when the legislature passed an act (Acts 1899, pages 480, 431) making it his duty to go not only to other counties but to other states as well to examine the records, etc., whenever the circumstances warranted such action, in the search for property omitted, from taxation; that such statute gave the county assessor and commissioners ample and all powers necessary to discover omitted property and place the same on the tax duplicate and that he was paid a salary for performing work which the last contract with the ferrets also delegated to the said ferrets and that the county commissioners could not contract with or employ any one else to perform the duties of any county officer. Therefore, he argued, the latter

contract was illegal and should be deolared void. Mr. Thompson was followed by C. E. Mills for the defendants. His remarks were chiefly quoting decisions of the higher courts on tax-ferret contracts. Judge Nye remarked previous to Mr. Mills’ argument that he was inclined to agree with Judge Thompson that the county ought not to pay but one-half the sums collected which belonged to the county revenue; that to pay onehalf of all sums collected, state, school, etc., from the county revenue and the investigation was a losing game for the county. He sustained the demurrer, however, on the grounds that plaintiff asked both legal and equitable relief, and gave plaintiff leave to file amended complaint. This was done, and both partiefi will furnish the court with briefs of authorities and the decision will be rendered at the February term. —o — A. W. Stevens Co., vs Babcock & Hopkins, action in replevin; verdict for defendants. Chas. W. Warren vs. Lottie M. Burns, action on note; verdict for defendant. W. W. Burns et al .vs. Samuel R. Nichols, appealed ditch case from commissioners court; settled by agreement. Nichols’ assessment was reduced sl6l and the other parties raised 3£ per cent and ditch ordered constructed. The Lewark vs. Freis commission case was decided in favor of plaintiff, giving him judgment for $2,000. In the Renicker vs. Brubaker case a temporary injunction was granted and the case will come up for hearing next Monday. The prospects now are that the big Spencer will case from Monticello, will not be tried next week, as it is unlikely that Judge Rabb can be procured to sit in the case.