Page images
PDF
EPUB

Dog tax and Poll tax-collection of.

MR. MARTIN SIMPSON, Olivet, Mich.:

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S Office, ì
March 10, 1899.

MY DEAR SIR-In reply to your letter of February 27, I desire to call your attention to Section 1 of Act No. 179 of the Public Acts of 1895, relative to taxing dogs, which reads as follows:

"That in all townships and cities of this state, there shall be annually levied and collected the following tax upon dogs: Upon every male dog over three months old owned or kept by one person or family, one dollar; upon every female dog three months old, owned or kept by one person or family, three dollars."

Section 2131 of Howell's Annotated Statutes, Volume 1, which is a part of the act amended by Act 179 of the Public Acts of 1895, reads as follows:

"Every person in possession of any dog, or who shall suffer any dog to remain about his house for the space of fifteen days previous to the assessment of a tax or previous to any injury, chasing, worrying, or killing of sheep, shall be deemed the owner of such dog for all purposes of this act."

While it may be true that the collection of a dog tax could not be en forced against a minor, yet, you will readily see that the farmer with whom he resides, and where the dog in question is kept, would be liable for the tax.

Under charter provisions in some of the cities of this state, ordinances have been passed providing for a tax upon dogs, and authorizing their seizure and destruction within a certain time providing such tax is not paid; but in townships, under the general laws of the state, I know of no provision which would justify a tax collector in killing a dog in case the tax was not paid.

In answer to your question relative to the levy and collection of a poll tax, I desire to say that every male inhabitant of this state, above the age of twenty-one years, and under the age of fifty years, except such persons as are exempt in Section 1334 of Howell's Annotated Statutes, Volume 3, are subject to such tax, and the same may be collected according to law, the same as any other highway tax.

The proper thing to do when assessed for a poll tax or dog tax is to comply with the law in respect to the payment thereof, and not attempt to avoid the payment of the tax on a mere technicality.

Yours respectfully,

HORACE M. OREN,
Attorney General.

School meeting-Where property in name of husband, dower interest of wife would not entitle her to vote.

MR. WILLIAM O. COLE, Big Rapids, Mich.:

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
March 10, 1899.

}

MY DEAR SIR-Your letter of 8, inst., received and considered, whereby you submit for my consideration, the following:

“A married man owns property in a certain district, on which he pays taxes for school purposes. The wife, naturally, would hold one-third of the property. Now the question arises, would she be qualified to vote on all questions at a district meeting, and could she hold a district office?" Where the title to property is in the name of the husband, the dower interest of the wife is not such an interest as would require her to pay taxes thereon, or as is contemplated by section 24, page 16, and section 31, page 19, of the general school laws.

I would therefore say, that unless otherwise qualified, she would not be entitled to vote, nor would she be entitled to hold office in the district.

Yours respectfully,

HORACE M. OREN,
Attorney General.

Industrial Home for Girls-Girl sixteen years and eleven months old sent to-Proceeding in committing her-County agent's report-Mittimus.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S Office,
March 10, 1899.

MRS. LUCY M. SICKELS, Superintendent, Adrian, Mich.:

}

DEAR MADAME-Your letter of 8, inst., with reference to the sentence to the Industrial Home for Girls of one Bertha Wilson, received and considered.

I have examined this matter very carefully, and can see no reason why I should change my ruling, which was telephoned you prior to the receipt of your letter.

The fact that the girl was sixteen years and eleven months old would make no difference, and the statute would apply to her the same as though she was several years younger, she being under seventeen years of age.

The law provides that a reporf of the county agent should be attached to the mittimus in counties where there is such county agent. The law with reference to the appointment of county agents is not mandatory, but the matter rests within the sound discretion of the Governor of this state. It is true, an agent was appointed in this county, who died prior to the trial in this case, but the law makes no provision for a successor, and unless some other person was appointed for that county, as county agent, I am of the opinion that it would be the same as though no county

agent had ever been appointed therein. Therefore, the provision requiring a report of the county agent to be attached to the mittimus would not apply during such period of time as the county was without such county agent.

Under the facts submitted to me, it would seem as though the officers representing the people in this matter had done everything possible in order to comply with the law, and for that reason, I advise you to accept the girl under such sentence to the State Industrial Home for Girls. Yours respectfully,

HORACE M. OREN,
Attorney General.

Liquor law-Forfeiture of license-Section 7, act 313, laws of 1887-Portion of, declared unconstitutional.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
March 10, 1899.

MR. S. S. CARSON, Justice of the Peace, Chesaning, Mich.:

}

DEAR SIR-In reply to your letter of 9, inst., relative to Section 7, Act No. 313 of the Public Acts of 1887,-the same being Section 2283d, Vol. 3, Howell's Annotated Statutes, I desire to say that so much of said section as refers to forfeiture of license and disbarring a person convicted for violation of said act from engaging in such business for one year, or becoming a surety upon a liquor bond, has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Robison v. Haug, 68 Mich. 549.

Yours respectfully,

HORACE M. OREN,
Attorney General.

Sheep killed-Certain fund to pay claims for damages.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
March 21, 1899.

S. R. SMITH, Esq., Prosecuting Attorney, St. Johns, Mich.:

}

MY DEAR SIR-In answer to your request for my opinion as to the proper construction to be placed upon Section 2128 of Howell's Statutes, I desire to say that it is my opinion that the surplus remaining in this fund after the payment of claims in any one year, where the same does not amount to $100, should continue from year to year. If, after the payment of the claims specified, for any one year, there should remain more than $100 in such fund, then the sum over and above that amount should be apportioned among the several school districts of such township in proportion to the number of children therein of school age. This section is an amendment to Section 6 of Act 198 of the Public Acts of 1877, which section, before amendment provided:

[ocr errors]

"If money remains of such fund after satisfactory payment of all claims aforesaid, it shall be apportioned among the several school districts of such township or city, in proportion to the number of children therein of school age."

The amendment to this section, by adding the words " in any one year," refer to the payment of claims, and in no respect is the method of procedure provided for in said section changed, except that when such fund exceeds the sum of $100 after the payment of the claims mentioned, the amount over and obove $100 is to be apportioned. It is quite evident that the object of the legislature in making this change in the law was for the purpose of having sufficient money in the fund in question to pay these claims. By reference to the title of said act you will notice that its object was "to create a fund for the payment of certain damages for sheep killed," etc. It is a special fund, created by law, and there is absolutely no provision in the law for the use of such fund, except as provided in the act itself, and it seems to me that the only practical and proper construction to be placed upon said section, is the one which I have herein stated.

[blocks in formation]

Drain law-Construction of-Surveyor locating certain drain-"State lands."

[blocks in formation]

MR. F. F. WHETMORE, County Drain Commissioner, Smith's Corners, Mich.: MY DEAR SIR-Your letter of 8, inst., received and considered, whereby you call my attention to certain sections of the drain law, and ask for my opinion thereon.

"State Lands" as referred to in Section 8, of Chapter 5, Act 254, Public Acts of 1897, in my judgment, refers to lands owned by the state, and such lands as have been bid off by the state for taxes and deeded to the state by the Auditor General, under and pursuant to Section 127 of Act 206 of the Public Acts of 1893, as amended by Act 154 of the Public Acts of 1895.

Under the condition of affairs existing in your county with reference to subdivisions of sections, you may have some difficulty as you say in complying with Section 2 of Chapter 3, but you should use every effort possible to comply as near as may be with the provisions of this section. I do not know as I can lay down any rule whereby you might be guided, under your statement of facts, in connection therewith. It is evident, however, that the legislature was under the impression that a competent surveyor would be able to comply with this section to a reasonable extent, in locating a drain, generally speaking, in any part of the State. The provisions of the law are plain, and if, owing to unusual conditions, it would be impossible to comply therewith in any particular, it is not the fault of the law in question, and you should act according to circumstances as you find them.

With reference to Section 7 of Chapter 5, I desire to say that it would not be compliance with the provisions of this act, to simply guess at the property benefited. Under the rule in the case of Atwell v. Zaluff, 26 Mich., 118, the court says that, "each parcel shall be clearly and definitely described so that it can be identified." If, in order to do this, it would require a survey, then in that case, a survey would be proper, but if the records in the office of the register of deeds should give a description of each parcel or piece of property benefited, sufficiently definite to reasonably locate the same, I am of the opinion that it would not require a survey. The question of reasonableness is supposed, too, and should enter into every act performed in compliance with the laws of this State, and where it is impossible to comply with the strict letter of the law in matters of this character, an official should comply as near as may be therewith, under the circumstances and conditions as they exist.

Yours respectfully,

HORACE M. OREN,
Attorney General.

Village election-Colored slips used by voters-Effect.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
March 20, 1899.

MR. W. F. WILLEMIN, Village Clerk, Caledonia, Mich. :

}

MY DEAR SIR-Your letter of 14, inst., received, and considered. You say that at the village election just held, "colored slips were used, and pasted over three candidates' names, two of their candidates being on one slip." As I understand it, there was the proper space between the names of the candidates, so that they would come in their proper order on the ticket, and the only question submitted by you is, whether or not colored slips can be used, legally. The law provides for the use of slips at elections. An elector may use a printed slip, and paste the same over the name of any candidate on the regular ticket. So far as the question of the color of the slip is concerned, there is no provision in the law which requires these slips to be of the same color as the ballot. It is very seldom that they are of the very same shade, or of the identical color of the ballot. In the absence of any fraud in the election, I am of the opinion that the use of such slips would be legal. Yours respectfully,

HORACE M. OREN,
Attorney General.

« PreviousContinue »