*1 347 LINSCOTT. Paul v. Linscott. Mar. 20, 1876. taxes. Sale non-resident of of the grant tax the record of county by doings proved the county convention.
After the record of taxes, the invoice of non-resident General by 53,
Statutes, 6, in of records ch. sec. the selectmen recorded their book the collector, warrant to the and at names the end of the Held., warrant. good
The town had been lotted. The land the was described in non-resident the name of the by the number of and a specific known,
description by which it as so to meet the re- might Statutes, quirements General secs. 18. It was described the same in the list the way to the collector selectmen the warrant, the number of lot and not being Held, given. a sufficient in the list.
In an action of the trespass guare clausum of land fregit, by sold cannot recover for done plaintiff acts on land during year sale, and succeeding delivery collector’s
deed, no other possessionor right shown. possessionbeing From Carroll Circuit Court. cl. fr., close, and breaking entering Trespass, qu.
situate in Eaton, known as the E. G. Linscott January and on 15,1874, of the that days day divers times between the date writ, and down 100 hemlock cutting away trees carrying and 100 value of trees, $200, <fcc.—writ dated spruce February 18, 1874. Trial court, Smith, J. The plaintiff introduced rec- ord Eaton, 1872, of the annual and it did town-meeting not thereby that ballot. appear Thereupon selectmen elected testified, introduced who plaintiff awitness, one Robinson defendant’s, he acted as selectman until exception, assisted, the board that he elected 1872 were moderator qualified, and that the ballot. The counting votes, plaintiff election amended, thereupon asked so to show that leave have record the election was ballot. granted, Leave to amend defendant bond introduced excepted. plaintiff Charles Robertson collector. defendant objected time when bond was filed should have been certified thereon by evidence, town-clerk but the was read in defendant ex- cepted. introduced the warrant treasurer Car- roll Eaton, county, dated February tax of requiring assess, them proportion PAUL LINSCOTT. $539.42. sum The defendant objected said town for *2 ; but the should be county the records of the convention produced treasurer, and the defendant court admitted warrant of the invoice The also introduced record of excepted. plaintiff ; also, defendant’s for exception resident taxes subject — 1872, in which the and non-resident invoice assessment record $3.67 state, town, taxes, and school was assessed county, defendant “ taxes, $3.48. In the column headed highway Description,” farm.” E. G. Linscott was, than immedi- selectmen, The otherwise list was signed collector, was the list selectmen, the record of warrant to the ately following “ in the him to the taxes collect signed requiring to to &c. The court the record list herewith committed allowed you,” evidence, and the defendant excepted. offered a be the original plaintiff paper purporting 16,1872, for 1872, non-resident taxes dated April and Eaton, above and is the record by the selectmen Said of the selectmen. mentioned Robertson testified that the exception signatures at the same to him paper date, bears warrant, with his the same time who re- and said was assessment of non-resident received, him to Said instead accept copy. paper quested the defendant excepted. and state, secretary introduced a letter from the The plaintiff deputy list, and 17,1872, therewith the non-resident returning dated October that, thereon, had which was received been collected stating nothing the defendant’s exception. to from Charles subject Paul, Jan- Robertson, collector, Albert dated Deed 1874, and 28, 1874, and acknowledged January executed uary excep- defendant’s 29,1875, recorded April —received in said deed is as follows: “A certain piece tion. The description and E. G. Linscott land, follows, pas- described viz., of ture, side, fifty the White farm on the north containing joining less, all of land Linscott owned meaning convey more in this in Eaton peace.” show the premises introduced evidence tending plaintiff Gerry E. G. Linscott as the also commonly pasture, south and and that it the White farm on the Linscott adjoins west; land in the defendant owned no other Eaton besides Gerry and that he is sometimes called Linscott. this pasture; to 1872. The plaintiff’s The town of Eaton been lotted prior off, show cut and drew tended to in that the defendant evidence timber, day sale, January dispute, between premises de- deed, 1874. The January date that the timber cut claimed could recover for fendant ruled, January 28, drawn off and the court so prior excepted. .plaintiff against defendant defendant claimed tax
PAUL v. LINSCOTT. was illegally assessed, because the number of the lot not inserted list; but the court ruled and the defend- ant excepted. The questions arising transferred to this case were foregoing court for determination.
Bastman and for the Copeland, plaintiff.
B. Hobbs,
Quarles,
Hastings,
the defendant.
Ladd, J. A large number of exceptions were taken
defend-
by the
ant at the trial, only a few of which are insisted on in the argument.
I have looked at such as
to be of
appear
in view of another
importance,
*3
trial of the case.
(1)
see no reason why the amendments of the town records were
not properly allowed.
(2)
col
requirement
law as to the
lector’s bond seems to have been answered, and I think there is noth
ing in this objection.
The warrant of
(3)
county treasurer
not sufficient evidence of the
tax.
granting
records
of the county convention were
necessary,
this
exception
sustained.
182;
6 N.
Cardigan
H.
Page,
Scammon Scammon,
N. H. 432.
The record of
(4)
the invoice of non-resident
taxes
1872 seems to have been quite immaterial,
far
so
as I can
from
gather
the case.
(5)
next exception is to the admission of the record of
the non-resident
1872;
invoice for
first,
we
the ob-
may consider,
jection that it was
not signed by the
signa-
their
except
tures followed the record of the warrant. This record is
a
quite
different
from
thing
list and
warrant delivered to the collector, and
the two must not be confused in
what are the
inquiring
requisites
each.
Stats.,
Gen.
6,
53,
ch.
sec.
that “A
provides
fair record shall be
made of every invoice taken by the selectmen, and of all taxes
them
by
assessed, in a book of records of the
of the selectmen in
doings
office, which shall be the
property
town,”
This record,
<fcc.
which the selectmen are thus
is
required
the assessment —Per-
keep,
kins v.
Langmaid, 36 N. H.
and I am not aware of any statute
which
it
requires
to be signed by them in any
way. By
particular
Gen.
ch.
Stats.,
1,
sec.
“A list of the taxes assessed on the real
estate of persons not
in
resident
the town shall made by
be
the select-
men under their hands,” &c. This is the list to be delivered to the
collector, and is, as
just remarked,
different
from
thing
the rec-
ord required by the act quoted above. This
must
list
be under the
hands of the
case,
selectmen. As understand the
no
present
ques-
tion arises like
in
v. Ackerman,
On results whole, with the reached brother agree my * J., C., O. concurred. Stanley,
Oase discharged. Gafney. Ossipee v. Mar. 22, 1876. had to time money
The selectmen of from time borrowed Ossipee of the same testator, and had for the use unlawful in- defendant’s paid $2,000and loans—one of the other terest. other loans two Amongst A short time before the $3,000 also had been usury paid. —on death, had the interest a settlement was with testator’s $5,000 instead of the and a note for two old account new adjusted, death, the full Ossipee, ones. After the testator’s facts, defendant, executor, all the who paid knowledge note, of any usurious transactions any infirmity no knowledge the balance due on said note. between the testator plaintiffs, defendant, clebonis whole propriis, claimed to recover plaintiffs * J., having did not sit. Smith, presided trial,