have been discovered, and, by 9. Consent granted to a traction

Taxation.

TAXATION.

1. The supplement of April 14th,
1891 (Pamph. L., p. 393), to the
Martin act of 1886 re-enacts the'

Taxation.

to be entitled to exemption under
section 3, placitum 4, of the Tax
act of 1903. Pamph. L., p. 394.
Stevens Institute v. Bowes, 205

provisions of said original act 5. Where a borough consents to the

as of such later date; its effect,
therefore is to invest the com-
missioners appointed under such
original act with jurisdiction to
adjust arrearages of taxes exist-
ing at the date of such supple-'
mental act as if such taxes had
been so in arrears at the date of
the original act; it does not pur-
port to enact any radical de-
parture from the provisions of
the parent act or to engraft upon
them any new provision, hence it
does not invest the commissioners
with a prospective jurisdiction to
deal independently with future
arrearages.
Jersey City V.
Speer,
34

2. In the ascertainment of the value

confirmation of the assessment
of ratables as made by its asses-
sor before the county board of
taxation, and such assessment is
thereafter confirmed, no contro-
versy exists; and the borough
cannot be said to be aggrieved
by the action of the county board
so as to justify an appeal to the
state board. Kenilworth V.
Board of Equalization of Taxes,

302

6. This court will not review the
action of the state board of
equalization in dismissing an ap-
peal where the action appealed
from was consented to by the
petitioner.
Ib.

of second-class railroad property 7. The fact that other property in

a taxing district is assessed for
taxation at less than its true
value affords no ground for re-
ducing the assessment placed
upon the property of a complain-
ing taxpayer below the true
value thereof. Royal Manufac-
turing Co. v. Board of Equaliza-
tion of Taxes,

under subdivision 2 of section 3
of the revised act of 1888 for the
taxation of railroad and canal
property, the state board of as-
sessors is required to value such
property at the value it has in
exchange for money as shown by
the testimony, i. c., at its market
value. Additional value im-
parted to such property by its
use under a railroad franchise S. A municipality which objects to
should not be included in such
ascertainment. Long Dock Co.
v. State Board of Assessors,

44

337

the apportionment of taxes by
the county board upon the ground
that the total of ratables as re-
turned by its assessor is excess-
ive. must object promptly. The
apportionment will not be re-
viewed by the court where the
municipality waits until Decem-
ber 14th to make any objection.
Kenilworth v. Board of Equali
zation of Taxes,
439

4. Land acquired by Stevens Insti- 9. Under the Franchise Tax Act of
tute in Hoboken subsequent to
the erection of its academic build-
ings, separated therefrom by a
street, and used mainly, if not
entirely, for athletic purposes, is
not land whereon the buildings
are situated, necessary to the fair
use and enjoyment thereof, so as

1900 (Pamph. L.. p. 502), pro-
viding, in substance, that moneys
payable by the holders of fran-
chises to any taxing district for
its exclusive use pursuant to con-
tract, shall continue to be paid
notwithstanding the act, and if
less in amount than the sum pay-

Trespass.

street

Trial.

he knew he was dealing with
Runyon as with a principal or
with him as the agent of another
than the defendant.
Ib.

able under the act shall be con-
sidered as a payment on account
thereof; and the difference made
up by payment pursuant to the
act-Held, that when a
railway company under annual 5. The admission of evidence which
contract liability of $250 to a bears remotely on the issue
township was taxed more than
that amount in the township un-
der the act of 1900 and paid the
tax in full, such payment in-
cluded payment of the contract
liability without separation into
parts or specific appropriation by 6. When a defendant has been held
the company of the proper share!
of the fund to such contract lia-
bility. Eatontown v. Monmouth
County Electric Co.,

See COLLATERAL INHERITANCE
TAX.

493

involved in a cause is within the
discretion of the trial judge, and
its admission is no ground for
reversal on error. Worcester
Loom Co. v. Heald,

172

to bail in an action of contract
on affidavits showing fraud in the
inception of the contract sued on,
and on the trial the fraud is
inquired into pursuant to section
166 of the Practice act of 1903,
the issue of fraud is for the de-
termination of the judge, and the
burden is on the defendant of
proving absence of fraud. Aus-
trian v. Laubheim,
178

7. An instruction to the jury that
an accused on trial for murder,
who sets up insanity as a defence
to the crime charged against him,
must convince the jury by a pre-
ponderance of testimony that his
mind was so deranged as to make
him irresponsible for his act, does
not require him to bear a bur-
den greater than that which the
law imposes upon him. The
word "convince" in the connec-
tion in which it is used, is equiv-
alent to "satisfy," and does not
indicate that the defendant must
prove his insanity by evidence
which would produce absolute
conviction in the minds of the
339
jury. State v. Maioni,

8. An erroneous instruction to the
jury upon a matter not involved
in the issue being tried, and
which could not have misled them
or affected them in their deter-
mination of the questions before
them for decision, affords no
ground for a reversal.
Ib.

transactions with one Runyon as 9. A judgment entered upon a di-

with the agent of the defendant,
it was error to exclude cross-
examination tending to show that

rected verdict will be reversed on
error if by such direction any
material matter in issue concern-