5

To the Honorable Mayor and City Council,

Gentlemen:

With reference to the attached petition of J. S. Carruthers, I
would state that the petition does not make a statement of facts but
rather of conclusions.

Mr. Carruthers has called to see me and furnished me with a memo-
randum showing to me that he took a deed from the trustees on the 2nd
day of November, 1900 which was placed of record on the 9th day of Novem-
ber, 1900. This would prima facie put the title in Mr. Carruthers on
the 1st day of January, 1901, and make the assessment proper and legal.

On the other hand, however, r. Carruthers represents to me that
after the date of the making of his deed an after the date of 1st of
January, 1901 the lot in controversy was in possession of the church
being used by them for church purposes and that it was necessary for the
conference to approve the sale to him which was not done until sometime
during the year 1901.

If the property was being used as church property on the 1st of
January, 1901, that is a place of religious worship, and if title had
not passed by reason of a want of approval by conference, the con-
currence of both facts being necessary, the assessment was invalid.
If the statements made by Mr. Carruthers are true, and for the purpose of
this opinion I am forced to so assume, in my opinion the assessment is
invalid. It would be well, however, to have a report from the Assessor
establishing the truth of Mr. Carruthers' statement before final passage
on the matter. I have no reason to disbelieve Mr. Carruthers' statement,
but think that in the regular course of events a statement of facts
should always be left to the Assessor for his approval as to the correct-
ness or incorrectness.

Respectfully submitted,

EC Orrick
City Atty