Boston & M. R. R. v. State

• Citation: 76 N.H. 86,79 A. 701
• Parties: BOSTON & M. R. R. v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 04 April 1911
• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire

79 A. 701

76 N.H. 86

BOSTON & M. R. R.

v. STATE.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

April 4, 1911.

Petition, in the tax appeal of the Boston & Maine Railroad, for revision of rulings of referees. Dismissed.

See, also, 77 Atl. 996.

Petition for the revision of rulings of referees. The petitioners' appeal from an assessment of taxes was by agreement sent to referees, who were directed to hear the parties and report the facts. Soon after the hearings were begun, the petitioners submitted questions to the referees, with a request for rulings thereon. The questions and rulings are, in part, as follows:

"(1) Will the board receive in evidence the testimony of investigators of the statements made to them by taxpayers and their agents as to the value of their property taxable for the year 1909? Answer: No, unless the statement is made in the presence of investigators representing both sides and they do not disagree as to its terms. In such case the evidence of the Investigators will be received."

"(6) Will the referees receive in evidence the testimony of the state board of equalization as to the method adopted by them for determining the value of railroad properties in the state for the purposes of taxation in the year 1909, and the rate of such taxation? Answer: No, except so far as to show what elements of value of the railroads are included in their valuation, and to inquire if they excluded the savings bank deposits and tax in fixing the rate."

"(10) If declarations of property owners and their agents as to values are obtained by investigators under the promise that they will be given to the referees and opposing counsel only, will such investigators be permitted to testify to those declarations, and the confidence under which they were obtained be respected? Answer: If obtained as provided under ruling 1, the referees will receive such testimony, but cannot undertake to limit the publicity of the hearings.

"(11) May we introduce firsthand declarations, that is, those made to persons who testify, of vendors and vendees as to the prices received or paid? Answer: No, but the referees will receive affidavits of vendors and vendees as to the prices received or paid for property, the affidavits offered by either party to be submitted to the other party for examination 10 days at least before they are offered as evidence. The referees must not be understood as ruling that they will receive affidavits generally upon all questions that are in issue; their present ruling is limited to the subject-matter mentioned in the question."

The present petition alleges, in substance, that in consequence of the foregoing rulings the petitioners are unable to use the results of inquiries made by their agents as to sales of real estate and the statements of property owners as to the value of their stocks in trade, made by them to the petitioners' investigators, all of which information was secured at large expense; that the referees have excluded as hearsay certain testimony as to sales of real estate, based on statements made to the witnesses by the vendors and vendees or their agents, and covering the consideration of sales; and that said rulings are contrary to law and the rules of evidence. It was further alleged that, if the petitioners were required to furnish evidence as to the value of stocks in trade and other taxable property under the restrictions imposed by the rulings of the referees, the expenditure of money and the consumption of time would render the proceeding practically impossible and work a deprivation of the petitioners' right to an abatement of their taxes. The prayer was that the foregoing rulings be modified and the referees be given instructions as to the evidence to be considered by them.

Branch & Branch and De Witt C. Howe, for petitioners.

Edwin G. Eastman, Atty. Gen., and Albert O. Brown, for the State.

BINGHAM, J. October 26, 1909, the petitioners filed their appeal in this court asking for an abatement of their taxes for that year. February 10, 1910, counsel for the respective parties having agreed that the case should be sent to referees, William M. Chase, Edgar W. Smith, and John H. Riedell were appointed by the court to act as such, and a commission was Issued to them containing the following directions: "You are hereby appointed referees in the above-entitled action. You will be first sworn to the faithful discharge of your duties. As soon as practicable, you will give reasonable notice to the parties of the time and place of hearing. You will, unless the parties otherwise agree, proceed according to the rules of law or equity, as the case may be, and according to the practice in court, and make report of your doings under this commission to said court, stating specifically your rulings upon all questions of law, and stating all matters of fact found proved, if either party shall request if either party shall neglect or refuse to appear before you, or to produce any books or papers, or to answer on oath any interrogatories relating to the matter in controversy that may be pertinent or material, you will certify the same to the court." The petitioners presented a series of questions to the referees, asking them to rule upon the admissibility of certain evidence which they proposed to offer in the course of the trial. The referees seasonably submitted their rulings upon the questions, some of which are set out in the petition. Not content with these rulings, the petitioners now make application to the...