O, Most Wine Judges!

Last Thursday, the three commissioners in the claim of the city of Ann Arbor against the estáte of Luther James for taxes, met in Ypsilanti, Mr. Goldsmith being unable from sickness to come lo Ann Arbor. Messr?. Bogardus and Brown had met on the Monday previous and had gnné over the whole qnestion together. The three commissioners were of one rnind in the question, and decided in favor of Ann Arbor ia the followinj: wr nis; " The qu'stinn Is. Was Luther James a resident or inhdbitiiH of the ciiy of -um Arbor. under the law. ia April, 1S8, aud for tbe purpuse of taxatlon ? !' To establish or decide this it is necessary, as has oltea n reprated in Ihf argument- lor us to go back to 1070. it being c nceded that for jeais prior to that date, ho was an iuhabiunt of theeiiy of An-i Aibor ■' It is alo cmteiidid that during Ihe year 1870, an'l was shown in evid-nce, that the aid Luthtr Jumes utKiertouk by intent and in vjriuU1 ways lo t.'MiiblMi a residence or iuhabitaucy ia the tow shipot Lima. " Did the fjct of Mich change by acts and condnci oí said Jumes from ls'.u uittil the time ot hi ili-a'h. concur wiih Mich intciit upon hit, part. and shoild the same be conbidered real or pruteudeo ? ' A In ree amount of evidenceisoffered.pro and con a rent dtal of which is mere opinión of wltnes-es. and also declarati. ns nf himself to othcr3 and recitals in deerts, nvriRaEes. wiils, etc, as well aa ihe laut of his voiing for many yeai without challenge, in the township of Lima "Alsnof his.iwn Iree willpaxiiiKtaxes n sald township o( Lima. and for soine of thesameyears paying tuxes in the citv of Ann Arbor, under protest, bui during his life taking no ste( to rtcover the ftame. " The preponderance of evidence shows that there was do perceptible change in his habitancy in 1870 or ihertaiter. and ihat his acis and conduet 'rom that time forward do not concur with such inient. !' The law, as well as volumineus decisions. as appliert to iiihatiumt. resident, home. or domicile (all being c. nMderert as synonvmous terms) for the Tiurpnse of taxalon. anl as cited by plaiutiffand defendant. has been by us carefully peiuse'i. as well as intentiy listenen to vvheu reaft and explained by ihe learned counsel on boih sides. aud we fail tn flnd actual abandonment of residence prior to 1870. or that new residence was thereafter acquircd, coupled with iuteution to do so. Our judgment is. from the law. facts. and evidence, that the claim should be by us allowed.''