Sullivan v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1898 |
| Citation | 23 So. 678,117 Ala. 214 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Baldwin county; William S. Anderson Judge.
From a judgment of the board of equalization increasing the assessment of Martin H. Sullivan he appealed to the circuit court, where the city filed a complaint on which issue was taken. Judgment was rendered for the state, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Martin H. Sullivan owned certain lands in Baldwin county, Ala which were assessed by him for taxes at the valuation of $1 per acre, amounting to $14,113. On July 31, 1895, notice was served upon said Sullivan that the board of equalization of said county had raised his assessment of said lands to $1.25 per acre, and that other property of his, viz. 12 miles of log ditch, at $400 per mile, had been added to the assessment, and that August 24, 1895, had been set for hearing. On the last-named date, after a hearing, the board of equalization rendered a judgment increasing said assessment of $1.25 per acre for the land, and adding the 12 miles of log ditch at $400 per mile. From this judgment Sullivan appealed to the circuit court. In the circuit court the following complaint was filed: "Now comes the state by Frank Stone, Jr., county solicitor, and alleges that said assessment herein annexed of $4,800, on twelve miles of log ditch, together with locks and dams on ditch, flumes and mill dams, is a fair, just and legal assessment." Issue was taken upon this complaint.
D. D Hall, a witness for the state, testified that the log ditch in question was worth $400 per mile from the 1st day of January, 1895, the date at which it is assessable, and that it had not been operated for 15 or 18 months previous to January 1, 1895. This witness testified that he did not know if the defendant actually owned the lands through which the ditch rain; that he owned 12 miles of this ditch which ran through his own land and also through lands leased from others. There was other evidence introduced on behalf of the state tending to show the value of the log ditch; that it was owned by the defendant, but that he had not returned it in his assessment for taxes.
One Tolan was introduced as a witness for the defendant, and testified that the log ditch on January 1, 1895, was in bad condition, and that it was not worth more than $200 or $250 per mile; and that he thought the ditch was 8 per 10 miles long.
The defendant introduced one T. N. Jordan as a witness, who testified that he knew the log ditch in question; that he had authority from M. H. Sullivan to operate a mill, occupy houses, use tools and have other privileges; had seen the ditch about January 1, 1895; that on the 1st of January 1895, it had no value; that at places it was filled in with trees, dirt and various obstructions at times, and that he opened up the ditch, and repaired it in the spring of 1895 and that it took several months to repair it, and it cost about seven or eight thousand dollars; that it was more trouble than to cut a new ditch; that he, the said Jordan, was president of the Jordan Lumber Company; he had arranged to operate said ditch; and that he had to make arrangements with one Hunt and another Tunstall to operate the ditch through their lands; and that the Jordan Lumber Company arranged to get timber off a large body of lands, through which the ditch ran, which lands were known as the railroad lands, and did not belong to M. H. Sullivan the defendant, and other lands which did belong to said Sullivan.
There was other evidence in behalf of the defendant tending to show that the log ditch was in a very bad condition, some of the witnesses testifying that it was worth nothing January 1, 1895. The counsel for the defendant thereupon offered the tax book of the county in evidence in order to show who was being assessed and who were paying taxes on the lands on which the said log ditch was located, and also for the purpose of showing that the valuation of defendant's land had been increased on his assessment for the 1st day of January, 1895, but counsel for the state objected, and the court sustained the objection, and counsel for the defendant then and there excepted.
Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "The jury will find for the defendant." (3) "If the jury believe the state had not proved that the defendant owned twelve miles of log ditch on the 1st day of January, 1895, they will find for the defendant." (4) "The burden of proof is upon the state to show that the defendant owned twelve miles of log ditch on the 1st day of January, 1895, that was subject to taxation." (5) "If the jury believe the defendant has been assessed for taxation on lands owned by him on the 1st day of January, 1895, on which the log ditch is located then the jury will find for the defendant as to that part of the ditch." (6) "The burden or proof is upon the state to prove that the defendant owned each and every mile of the twelve miles of log ditch claimed by the state to be subject to taxation." (7) "If the jury believe from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matheny v. Petersen
...to prove them to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury. Because Charge 8 is misleading it may be refused without error. Sullivan v. State, 117 Ala. 214, 23 So. 678; Rolston v. Langdon, 26 Ala. Fourth, defendant argues: 'Charge 8 also requires that if the other elements thereof are met tha......
-
Sidney v. State
...man, and hence, instructions predicated on that theory were properly refused. Adler v. Miller, 218 Ala. 674, 120 So. 153; Sullivan v. State, 117 Ala. 214, 23 So. 678. Charges 4 and 13 were affirmative in nature. A jury question was presented under the evidence requiring a refusal of these c......
-
Hughes v. State
...and special jurors summoned, one entire day before the day set for trial, all in substantial compliance with sections 4872 and 4874 of [23 So. 678.] the Code of 1876. The transcript is silent as to whether not these orders of the court were executed by the sheriff. The cause appears to have......