Cardwell v. . Mebane

Peakson, C. J. The “tax lists” were not competent evidence to show the value of the land, as the assessors were not witnesses in the case, sworn and subject to cross-examination in the presence of the jury. So his Honor committed no error in rejecting the “tax lists ” as inadmissible for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter therein set out. But we are of opinion that the “ tax lists ” ought to have been admitted in another view of the subject. “ Every fact ” is admissible in evidence, provided it be relevant; for illustration, a record, i. e., the fact of there being such a record, is evidence against the world, but it only imports absolute verity of its contents, as against parties and privies; all others are heard to say “ res inter alias acta.” In regard to the “ tax lists,” it is a fact that the tract of land had been assessed at $5,000, and the question is as to the relevancy of that fact. These young men say “ our father asked us $5,000 for the land, being away out in Florida.” We paid him the money and took a deed from him and our mother, the same being duly, legally and in good faith conveyed for the consideration named in said deed;” and in reply to the suggestion that the pretence of having paid $5,000 for the land “ runs over the mark,” for' that in fact the land was not worth more than $3,000; they offer to show, as a matter of fact speaking for itself, that by the tax lists, at the date of the deed and before the war, the-land was assessed at the value of $5,000, which fact, they urge, is relevant to show, probable cause on their part to believe, that the land was of that value as represented by their father, and is explanatory of the circumstance that they paid that price, confiding in the representation of their father. In support of this view it may be said, an insurance agent *488 •on our wishing to invest money on mortgage, looks to the tax lists as a means of information; for property is seldom assessed to® high. The mere fact that this land was entered ■on the tax lists as of the value of $5,000 is evidence against everybody of that fact, and we are of opinion that in repelling a charge of fraud resting among other circumstances on the allegation that the pretended price paid exceeded very much the value of the land, the defendants ought to have been allowed to prove this fact, to pass for what it was worth in the estimation of the jury. Error. Pee. Curiam. Venire de novo.