State ex rel. Martindale v. Lauer

• Decision Date: 17 November 1888
• Citation: 116 Ind. 162,18 N.E. 527
• Parties: State ex rel. Martindale, Pros. Atty., v. Lauer.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

116 Ind. 162

18 N.E. 527

State ex rel.Martindale, Pros. Atty.,

v.Lauer.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

November 17, 1888.

Appeal from circuit court, Marshall county; Isaiah Conner, Judge.

Complaint by the state ex relatione Elijah C. Martindale, prosecuting attorney, against Levi Lauer, to recover the statutory penalty for returning a fraudulent list of taxable property. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the plaintiff appeals.E. C. Martindale and J. D. McLaren, for appellant. Leopold M. Lauer, for appellee.

Elliott, J.

This action is prosecuted under the provisions of section 6339 of the Revised Statutes of 1881, to recover the statutory penalty for making and returning a false and fraudulent list of taxable property. The complaint reads thus: “The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and says that the said defendant now is and has been for two years last past a resident of the city of Plymouth, in Center township, in Marshall county, Ind.; that the assessor of said township, John A. Palmer, between the 1st day of April, 1886, and the 1st day of June of said year, gave to the defendant a blank schedule, to be by the defendant filled out, and to make a true list of his personal property owned by him on the 1st day of April, 1886, and subject to taxation; that on the 19th day of April, 1886, the defendant gave to the said assessor a false and fraudulent list and schedule of his personal property subject to taxation on said 1st day of April, to-wit, the defendant gave in, as money loaned on time or call, the sum of $2,700, when, in truth and in fact, said defendant had on the said 1st day of April a much larger sum of money loaned, to-wit, the sum of $12,519, to divers citizens of said state; that the defendant was on said 1st day of April the owner of a large stock of dry goods and merchandise of the value of $3,000, all subject to taxation, which he failed to list and give in, as shown in said list and schedule, which is filed herewith, marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and made part thereof; that said list and schedule given to said assessor, as aforesaid, is false and fraudulent, as aforesaid.”

The validity of the act under which the action is prosecuted is very satisfactorily vindicated by the decision in Burgh v. State, 108 Ind. 132, 9 N. E. Rep. 75, and we do not deem it necessary to add anything to what was there said. There is nothing in Durham v. State, 17 N. E. Rep. 629, that can be regarded as impairing the force of the...