Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 307, 22 October 1891 — [Illegible] as Judge. [ARTICLE]

[Illegible] as Judge.

A <: •< ision of the Supreme Court in Banco, was given by Justice Dole, ih th'e case ofthe Hutchinson Sugar Planf ation Company vs. The Hawai 'uwi Government and O. T. Shipman. This case was brought forward (*n a bill in ecj\iity to vacate the decision of a Tax Appeal Board. The question agreed upon to be submitted to the decision of the Suprenie Court was "whether -or not ■ ? '.o facts presented by the recoro ! proceedings of the tax appeal - :t in this matter were inYalidated by said C. Meineche's sit- j ting and acting as a member. And that if so invalidat©d the prayer ot the uetitioner shall be graftted. The 'vrcumstances of thc case, i fri > brief are as followS: The plaintiff assessed the vahi<=Tof the !Hutchisoo Plantnt'>»n Property in Kau, Hawaii, i*i a certain aniount; the Tax Assessor improved upon the plaintifFs valuation and, »nd made the corporation $250,000 ric&er than the owners thereofthrough their agenta ? were williug to acknowledge the property to be worth, at least for £Overnment taxation. Upon this differtnce an appeal was taken to the Tax Appeal Board, composeddf C. Meineeke and others, The plaintiffs very properly protested against the Baid C. Meineeke sitting at the hearing before th<S said Court on the ground of being a government drawing a salary and thus was v/ot a disinterested judge in the matter, and was therefore disqualifted. īt also appeared that Mr. M. was in litigation with the olantation, The Court held, that under the law and testimony, Mr. Meinwke was not qualified to sit as a Member of the Board of Aopeal. and that it« decision wasillegal and must be * :iside. This decision of the full 1 ./ trt makes the duty of appointing Tax Api>eal Boards clear, and shou!d be a l£sson to the Minister of Fi:iance to be more guarded and jn lirious in selecting members for \ppeal Board not disqualified V. i ',v Under the present drcumstan<.:os, by the illegal construction of the Board, it is veryevident that the difference of opinion between the Tax Assessor and the Plantation Company as to the value «f the property is still an open question, with no course leffc to the government to test its correctness.