Minutes 12/13/1927 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

December 13, 1R27 · _ UNFINISHED BUSINESS The following report was read from the City Attorney: Honorable City Council, Portsmouth, Va. Gentlemen:u "December 13, 1927. At your'last meeting you directed'me to investigate the case'of D'Arti and others in the matter of payment of license taxes on shoe repairing establishments. I am returning herewith a list, prepared by Mr. H. H. Mathews, License Znspector, of the People who have ob- tained licenses to do shoerepairing. Mr. Nathews has required all those who work by hand, and some of whom have a small hand stitcher for sewing on patches, which has the appearance of a sewing machine, to pay $16.O0. All who have a POlisher and-a stitcher which is used to'sew on soles he has required to pay $26.00. Mr. Mathews placed Mr. D'Arti in the second class and states that he has. two machine~,~ an electric polisher and a stitcher which works'by a foot paddle. Mr. D'Arti contends that because his stitcher works by foot power and not by electric. power he should pay only $16.00. Mr. Mathews contends that he does the same kind of work as the man with the electric stitcher, and while he works his stitcher b~ foot power and not by motor powerhe still uses electricity to heat the machine and the wax, the machine being unable to work cold. The license tax ordinance reads as follows: 'Each shoe repairing shop using electric polisher only, $16.00; electric polisher and stitcher, $26.00.' It seems to me that where two men are doing the same class of work, coming into oompetltion with each other for the same thing they should pay the same license, and it should not be a question whether one has a more improved piece of machinery than the other~ However the ordinance can be interpreted to read either ~to.t~clude or not to include Mr. D'Arti in the $26.00 class and it is largely a matter of intention ~f the City Oouncil as to which class he belongs. I would say that he has not an electric stitcher in the strict sense of the word,.and if the Oounoll intended to place only $16.00 on people using foot machines then Mr. D'Arti should be refmnded $10.00. If on the other hand it intended to place $26.00 on people who.sew on shoe soles by machines, and $16.00 on those who sew by hand (or as Mr. Mathewssays used the other man,s machine) then Mr. D'Arti is not entitled to a refund. Were I to interpret the ordinance without taking into consideration the intention of the Councit~I would look to the class of work which Mr. D'Arti was doing and not to the~ way in which he is doing it, and espec- ially since it is the policy of the law to tax all people who are doing the same class of b~si- ness alike. I ~ave depended upon Mr. Mathews in furnishing the data that I am submitting here- with as he has classified the various shoe repaiTing'shops and is familiar with the s~me. I understand from him that D'Arti has a different machine from any other shop. Yours very truly, toMr. G. R. C. BARCLAY, City Attorney.# Stewart moved tD~t a special appropriation of $10.00 be allowed to make the refund D'Arti. The motion was adopted. The following report was also read from the 0ity Attorney: Honorable City 'Council, Portsmouth, Va. "December 13, 1927. Gentlemen:-- At your last meeting you referred to me certain tax matters upon which I beg to report as fqllows: 1. Order of Court entered on Nov. ly, 1927, upon motion of the Commissioner of Re~en~e. ~his order was entered to correct certain errors made in the land book and must be complied with. Mr. C. E. Temple shou.ld be refunded $65.00 paid in error for the year 1926, and the following should~be rel.ieved. Bernard F~uth'.s estate, $18,8G; C. E. Templet $?0.20; Petersbur~ Excelsior Mills $135.00, Eveline Shultz $2.~0, Elizabeth Clark et als, $~.15, all for 192~ taxes. 2. Order of Court decreasing the assessment against" Nicholas/Minerva Harrison from $1400. to $~00 on the buildings on their land. This order was i~roperty entered and Nicholas Harrison and Minerva. Harrison should be relieved of taxes amounting to $12.50 for the year 1926, to- gether with interest and penalties thereon. The assessment was reduced in the 1927 land book. Yours very truly, R. C. BAROLAY, Oity Attorney.~ ~r. Dunford moved that a special appropriation of $65.00 be allowed to refund C. E. Temple amount paid in error for taxes for the yea~ 1926, and that the reliefs recommended by the City Attorney be allowed. The motion w~s adopted. The following ordinance, which had been adopted at a joint meeting of the Board of Super- visors and 0ity Council at 10 a. m. this date, was presented: