Bartlett v. Town of New Boston

• Decision Date: 02 February 1915
• Parties: BARTLETT v. TOWN OF NEW BOSTON.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

93 A. 796

77 N.H. 476

BARTLETT

v. TOWN OF NEW BOSTON.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

Feb. 2, 1915.

Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County.

Petition by Eben L. Bartlett against the Town of New Boston, for abatement of taxes assessed against plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion to strike from report a finding of the Tax Commission that he was a resident of New Boston when the taxes in controversy were assessed, was denied, and he excepts. Case transferred. Exception overruled.

The plaintiff lived in Deering from April 28, 1893, to January, 1894, and then removed to New Boston. He retained ownership of the house in Deering, and has occupied it whenever his business took him to that town. From 1894 to 1902 he had a woman come and do the work whenever he had occasion to occupy the Deering house, from 1902 to 1906 he kept a servant in the house, and since 1900 he has employed her whenever he has remained in Deering for any considerable time. He refused to return an inventory for 1910, and the selectmen of New Boston doomed him. He announced that he should leave the town if he was compelled to pay the tax, and on March 25, 1911, he drove to Deering, told the selectmen that he was a resident of that town, and was taxed there for the years 1911 and 1912. He remained in Deering two days at that time, and returned again on March 31st for a stay of a day or two. Although the plaintiff claimed to be a resident of Deering, he has in fact lived and made his home in New Boston' since March 25, 1911, just as he had done since 1894. During all the time he lived with his family in New Boston, he had been accustomed to make trips to Deering two or three times a month and stay there from one day to a week, the length of his stay depending on the time required to look after his property in that town. Since 1911, his visits to Deering have not been longer nor more frequent than before that year. The tax commission having found that the plaintiff was a resident of New Boston when the taxes in question were assessed, he moved that this finding be struck from the report as contrary to the evidence, and excepted to a denial of the motion.

Branch & Branch, of Manchester, for plaintiff. Wason & Moran, of Nashua, for defendant.

YOUNG, J. The only question of law it will be necessary to consider is whether there is any evidence to sustain the finding excepted to; in other words, whether fair-minded men can reach any other conclusion than that the plaintiff was a resident of Deering when one or both of these taxes were assessed. It is conceded that he was a resident of New Boston when he started for Deering on March 25, 1911. Consequent...