Blodgett v. Cosgrove

• Citation: 167 A. 925,117 Conn. 301
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 01 August 1933
• Parties: BLODGETT, Tax Commissioner, v. COSGROVE

167 A. 925

117 Conn. 301

BLODGETT, Tax Commissioner, v. COSGROVE

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

August 1, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.

Application to the superior court by William H. Blodgett, Tax Commissioner, to commit John F. Cosgrove for refusal to be sworn and to answer questions at a hearing before the tax commissioner, brought to the superior court and tried to the court. Judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

No error.

Examining one city assessor at a time at hearing respecting manner in which laws relating to listing and assessing taxable property are executed by city assessors, and excluding other assessors from hearing while examination was taking place, and admitting other members of public thereto, held within discretion of tax commissioner. Gen.St.1930, § 1088 (Rev.1949, § 1680).

Robert P. Butler, of Hartford, for appellant.

Farwell Knapp, of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

AVERY Judge.

From the admitted facts of the application and the stipulation of the parties, it appears that the tax commissioner, acting under the authority of Gen. Stats. § 1088 (appended in the footnote^[1]) issued a subpœ na directing John F. Cosgrove, a tax assessor of the consolidated town and city of Hartford, to appear before him at the state capitol building to be examined under oath respecting the manner in which the laws relating to listing and assessing taxable property were executed. The subpœ na was duly served upon the respondent, and, at the time and place directed therein, he appeared together with his counsel. On the previous day, two other assessors of the city had been questioned, but, before attempting to administer the oath to the respondent, the commissioner directed that the other assessors be excluded from the room while the respondent was giving his testimony. They thereupon retired. The commissioner then refused to exclude from the room other persons who were present at the hearing, representing certain newspapers. Thereupon the respondent, upon advice of counsel, refused to be sworn and to answer questions, upon the ground that he was unwilling either to be sworn or to answer any questions unless the hearing was to be either public, in which case the other assessors should be present, or private, in which case all members of the public should be excluded except those immediately concerned in the inquiry. Upon his refusal to take the oath or testify, the hearing was ended, and the tax commissioner brought this application to the Superior Court to commit the respondent for failure to be sworn and testify; and the court, after hearing, committed the respondent to jail, there to remain until he should testify, but not exceeding sixty days as provided in the statute.

Only two questions are raised by this appeal: (1) Has the tax commissioner, under the statute, in the course of conducting a hearing relating to tax commissioner, under the statute, in the course of conducting a hearing relating to tax assessments in the city of Hartford, the discretion of examining one assessor at a time, excluding other assessors from the hearing while the examination is being conducted, although admitting other members of the public thereto? And (2) was the respondent justified under the facts stipulated in refusing to be sworn or to testify?

Gen Stats. § 1088, was first enacted in 1901 (Public Acts 1901, c. 62) as part of the statute which created the office of tax commissioner. An important function of that officer, as set forth in the statute, is to inquire into the manner in which the laws relating to listing and assessing taxable property are executed by the assessors and boards of relief of the several towns, and whether all persons and property taxable in such towns are in fact justly assessed and taxed; whether the taxes are in fact collected and paid as prescribed by law, and the accounts of the towns accurately and properly kept and tax exemptions granted in the manner and only to the extent required by law. As stated in the statute, for the purpose of making such inquiry and obtaining such information, the commissioner is authorized to visit the towns and to summon any person to appear before him and be examined under oath with the power to require the production of books and papers to obtain information upon these matters. It is in the interest of the State as well as of the public that the statutes in relation to taxation be strictly construed and accurately complied with by the officers in the various municipalities charged by law with duties in connection therewith. It is a matter of common knowledge that, because of the great number of persons engaged in the various towns as assessors, boards of relief, and collectors, lax practices have, from time to time, grown up in some communities to the loss of the public and occasionally to the great hardship of individuals. Obviously, the office of tax commissioner...