Durham v. State ex rel. Anderson
| Decision Date | 05 January 1889 |
| Docket Number | 14,313 |
| Citation | 19 N.E. 327,117 Ind. 477 |
| Parties | Durham v. The State, ex rel. Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for a Rehearing Overruled March 5, 1889.
From the Montgomery Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
P. S Kennedy and S. C. Kennedy, for appellant.
L. T Michener, Attorney General, A. B. Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney, and J. H. Gillett, for the State.
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, Indiana; 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, Indiana, 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, ex rel., 108 Ind. 132, 9 N.E. 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, ex rel., v. Lauer, 116 Ind. 162, 18 N.E. 527, and the rulings made in Burgh v. State, ex rel., supra, 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, ex rel., supra, 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, R. S. 1881.
The requirement of the statute is that the taxpayer 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 clear that the statute intends that a person guilty of returning such a list shall pay the penalty prescribed. The object of the statute is two-fold: 1st. To reimburse, in some measure, the government for the loss and inconvenience caused by the effort to secrete property. 2d. To punish the offender. The penalty is not simply a fine.
We have no doubt that we were right in holding, as we did in...
To continue reading
Request your trial