FOREST DISTRICT ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. 



Law Court so Decides. 



In November 19 12 the Law Court handed down a rescript 

 overruHng defendants' exceptions in the Frankhn county tax 

 case of Inhabitants of Sandy River Plantation vs. Weston 

 Lewis and Josiah S. Maxcy, both of Gardiner, and owners of 

 property in Sandy River Plantation. The constitutionality of 

 the forestry district tax and the authority of the plantation as- 

 sessors to assess or collect any part of the forestry district tax, 

 are among the questions involved in the exceptions. 



The rescript, which was drawn by Associate Justice George 

 F. Haley of Biddeford, is as follows : 



This is an action of debt, to recover taxes assessed against the prop- 

 erty of the defendants in the year 1910 by the assessors of Sandy 

 River Plantation, in which assessment is included the forestry district 

 tax for that year. At the close of the testimony the presiding justice 

 directed a verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount of the tax sued for, 

 and interest thereon from the date of demand, May 30, 1910. 



In considering the exceptions it should be remembered that this is an 

 action at law to recover the tax, and not a proceeding seeking to en- 

 force a forfeiture for its non-payment, and that an action for the re- 

 covery of a tax assessed will not be defeated by any irregularity, but 

 only by such omission or defects as go to the jurisdiction of the as- 

 sessors, or deprive the defendant of some substantial right, or by some 

 omission of an essential pre-requisite to the bringing of the action. 



I. It is objected that there is no evidence of the legal election or 

 qualification of the assessors of said plantation for the year iOto, because 

 the book of record, which purported to show their election, had been 

 mutilated and pages, upon which the record of the annual meeting for 

 1910 had been attempted to be made, had been cut out and the record 

 introduced as the record of that meeting was made in February, 191 1. 



There is no evidence that the pages cut from the record book was 

 tne record of the annual meeting. The legitimate inference is that the 

 writing upon the leaves cut from the book was done by a daughter of 

 the clerK, in an attempt to make the record for the clerk to sign, but 

 he never signed or attested it as the record. It was found to be contrary 

 to the facts, or wrong in some particulars and then the record that 

 was introduced in evidence was made as the record of the annual meet- 

 ing of 1910, and the clerk testified at the trial that it was the record of 



