, 1875-04-18

fng among the otter Jurors for eoanter-stada-
vits unless II we're necessary.
Mr. Lefhngwel1 read several dec1s1ons which
supported his view.
Air. Ayar, for complainants, objectod to sr-
guiug the 9atter BY piecemeal.
The CouH Was not inclined to take up the mat
ter seriatim. desiring to hear the whole qaes-
ton discussed. ....
to argue the main motion, and
opened for the complainanta, addressing him.
self to three points: first, incompetent e7t-
dence, since trespass was proved, evidently
with tho purpose OF prejudicing the jury ;
OF testimony tended to sustain or support the
jurr hxving no right TO consider the valuations
Of witnesses which .were founded upon an e.
foneons hypothesis of fact and third, improper
and Illegal acts committed in the jhry-roon. the
Courts not permitting them to 60 the length they
did. He characterized the verdict as an outrage.
aud said il such verdict Was to be sa':tsined
the price fixed, making the cost OF the ID aores
in the tract almost tia: OF tho 400 other acres
the Commissioners had acq1lred-the Boafu
might as well abandon all hope OF carrying Ter
ward the park improvement The markeu Ya'ue
Of t1e land, towhicb the owners were entitled,
wss not equal, according to the average test1-
ncl9, to more than two years interest," at ~ per
.ru., On tho damages awarded.
MR. BORDEN ~
commended that there Was testimony adequate TO
support the verdict. arguing that. 1t the whole
been fair to SAX whatthe property was worth IN
body cash in order to determine the value any
particular piece. The Commissioners, by fencing
the tract and putting their men IN charge of It
ant announcing it as part OF the park, had
DESTROYED it's nlarket-value and, therefore. that
wine. ....
JUDGE puSLEvT
did moi see how the jury, considering only the
testimony offered by the Commissioners, could
hnru reduced their yeadict very much. The oth-
cials had proceeded upon the theory that, the
land being inside the park, no one would buy it,
and, therefore, it was worth nothing" - they
being determined to secure the property at prices
which ruled in 1869. ignoring the fact that land
In the neighborhood had advanced from a0 TO 1V0
Ear cent aincs that year. Ho did not think the
jury had acted outrageously, but had given less
ihan they might haye done under the testimony.
Air. Leifoswen then referred To the affidavit,
ssying he did not know whether it was true Of
not; but
ONE OF THE 1URrlEy
had told him he had not seen any whisky in the
Judges Toon1.
Mr. Smith remarked that there was jurvman
seated behind him Dunleyyr rrsferring to q man
with half-cIosed eyes--who vas nodding.
NJ. DunIsvy turned and hooked ut him and
ssid 'tyes."
Mr.. smith-He does not look a. If he knew
what WHISKY was.
The jurynsn {wiinhng at Judge Dunlevy)-
Sid Smith KNOWS all about it, G-d-n him.
The Court-Put that man ont.
bail,R "bounced" the dlunkard.
{One of the other jurymen was in the court
earlier in the day, but went out after \ bailih
had Is whispered in his earl
Mr. Lefing"ell followed Judge Dunlevy.
speaking particularly in reference to the incoua-
potency Of the affidavit, but before he had cor
:luded his argument, the Court adjourned. Mr..
Smith will close On Monday morning, and the
Court may dispose Of the motion without taking
much time for deliberatioH.