Durham v. State ex rel. Anderson
| Decision Date | 05 January 1889 |
| Citation | 117 Ind. 477,19 N.E. 327 |
| Parties | Durham v. State ex rel. Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; E. C. Snyder, Judge.
Action against William H. Durham, on the relation of Albert B. Anderson, prosecuting attorney, to recover the penalty imposed by Rev. St. Ind. § 6339. for making a false and fraudulent schedule of assessable property. Judgment for the state on demurrer, and defendant appeals.Kennedy & Kennedy, for appellant. Albert B. Anderson, Pros. Atty., and The Attorney General, for appellee.
The relator's complaint, omitting the formal parts, reads thus: “That the defendant, William H. Durham, is now, and for ten years last past has been, a resident of Union township, Montgomery county, Ind.; that on the 1st day of April, 1887, said defendant was the owner of a large sum of money, to-wit, one hundred and thirty-six thousand two hundred and thirty-one dollars and fourteen cents, on deposit in the First National Bank of Crawfordsville, Ind., subject to his order, check, and draft, and which was subject to taxation under the laws of said state; that on the 30th day of May, 1887, one George W. Benefield, who was then and there deputy-assessor of Marion township, of said county, appointed by Daniel H. Gilkey, the assessor of said township, and acting as such deputy, called upon said William H. Durham, and furnished him with the proper blanks for the purpose of said Durham making to such deputy-assessor a full and correct description of all the personal property of which the said Durham was the owner, on said 1st day of April, 1887; that on said 30th day of May, 1887, said Durham delivered to said Benefield, as such deputy-assessor, a list and schedule purporting to be a full and correct list and description of all the personal property of which said Durham was the owner, on the 1st day of April, 1887; that said list and schedule was not a true and correct list, schedule, and statement of said Durham's money on deposit, subject to his order, check, and draft, but was a false and fraudulent list, schedule, and statement, in this, to-wit, that said list, schedule, and statement so delivered to said deputy-assessor did not contain said sum of money on deposit as aforesaid.”
In Burgh v. State, 108 Ind. 132, 9 N. E. Rep. 75, the questions presented by this record were very fully discussed, and a conclusion reached that decides this appeal against the appellant. The same questions were presented in the case of State v. Lauer, 18 N. E. Rep. 527, (Nov. 27, 1888,) and the rulings made in Burgh v. State were approved and followed. We do not deem it necessary to again discuss the question, for we are satisfied that the reasoning in Burgh v. State demonstrates the validity of the conclusions there announced, and to them we adhere.
There is no difference, in principle, between this case and the former cases; for here the complaint charges that the defendant delivered to the assessor a false and fraudulent list, and the particular in which it was false and fraudulent is specified. The demurrer concedes that the list was a false and fraudulent one, and the case, therefore, comes within the provisions of section 6339 of the Revised Statutes of 1881.
The requirement of the statute is that the tax-payer shall give a true list, and, as it reads in substance, if “he shall give a false or fraudulent schedule or statement,” he shall be “liable to a penalty of not less than fifty dollars, nor more than five thousand dollars.” It is perfectly obvious that a list which fraudulently omits an item of property is such an one as the statute condemns, and it is also...
To continue reading
Request your trial