Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-01-23
Rights OF Railroads I'm the streets.

the case the case of Mrs. Margaret Hetzel
agt- The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad com
Pany, was taken up. Judge Henry Il. Sell
den, of New York w. E Chandler and r
W Hackett appear for plaintiff, and James
A. Buchanan and w. 5. Cox for defendant
The plaintiff is the owner of lot l. square
GO, situated at the northwest corner of North
capital and ID streets, and she charges that
u street being common highway, the defen-
dant on the LIST ofJanuary, 1910, placed there
on railroad tracks and INSTRUCTED the streets
by placing thereon freight cars in large num-
berS, and suffering the same to remain there
unreasOnably long, at frequent times, for
tWenty-four hours at each time, and by load
tEg and unloading freight in said street, and
using IL for the general purpose of a freight
yard, and by blocking the way with wagons
and carts, for the loading and unloading of
freight. and thereby prevented the said plain
tif, as well as the public, from passing and
repasSing on said street, and more particu-
larly from using that portion of it on which
plalntln S lot abuts, TO gain access to or exit
nom said lot Of land, and still ObStruct said
street, and still prevent her, as well as the
public, and thereby have materially and Sc
rlOuSly diminished the value of said land to
the special damage of this plaintiff, as she
says. the sum of ten THOUSAND dollar
She also charges that North Capitol street
being common public street, the defendant,
with intent wrOngfully tOdiminish the value
OF said lot. on the LIST day Of January ISL
built their track across said street several
feet below the established grade. and has
continued ever since To keep and maintain
said track below the grade. So that the grad
ing of North Capitol street cannot be con
tiuued and finished. and so that said Streat
is row. and has for a long time past remained
impossible, and plaintiffhas been prevented
thereby from enjoying access to and exit
from said lot by way of North Capitol street,
across said track as she had right; and the
public are prevented from reaching said lot
across said track. whereby the value of said
lot has become materially diminished. to the
special damage of, as she says, the sum of
ten thousand dollars.
REPORT OF THE REFEREE.
This suit was entered on the 24th of April
IS. and in the month following Mr.. II d.
Mussey was appointed referee, and the case
was sent to him. In October following he
filed his report, stating that the lot in queS-
ton is several feet below the present grade OF
North Capitol street, and still more below
The proposed grade. Some five tracks of the
defendant pass the North Capitol side of this
lot on their way u the depot in square CS}2;
and there is track Of defendant diverging
from North Capitol street around the south
east corner of the lot into ID street, and to
within n feet of New Jersey avenue. This ID
street track is within from eight to twenty
feet Of the ID street building line of the lot
and was first laid in 1861. This ID street track
Is not used as means of transit, but as a
siding" for the loading and unloading Of
freight cars. The track and its occupation
constitute barrier against access to the
plaintiffs lot from u street. almost as effect
ual as If a wall, the height and width of
freight cars, were erected in front of il at a
distance of from to 20 feet from its front
line. The valuation o: the lot is at present
about 81 cents foot. 1t sold for that IL auc-
tiOn-nOt long since. Its value is sensibly
lcSSened by its surrounding" and various
attempts made to sell il have been unSucceSS-
full. owing to those surroundings. No use OF
II can be made by the owner at present, but
as a coal yard, OF wood yard. or for the cree
ton of warehouses. The testimony is not so
full upon the question. "What would be its
value if the obstruction afforded by the ID
street track were away, and the North Capi-
tOl street tracks and the depot renainet?''-
but from the best data before me estimate
IL AT - a foot.
He gives the findings of law: The pIafntif
claims that the defendants depot is unlaw-
fully located where il is, and that the North
Capitol street tracks five in number) to il
are unlawfully laid. / cannot sustain this
claim. The Baltimore and Ohio railroad
Company entered this city under acts of
Congress of May % TO 2s, March I'd, 1881,
February &c, 1884, and March Sd, 1885. The
last named act allows the company so many
tracts as the corporate authorities of Wash
ingtOn may assent TO or permit" The
plaintiff has not shown that these five tracts
were not aSSented TO nor permitted by the
corporate authorities OF Washington, but it
Is shown that at least four of them have been
down for over 20 years, and were when the
present depot was built. Though the present
depot Is not on the site OF the original depot
yet its existence and location have been
recognized by Congress in such manner as
TO seem TO Indicate the assent of that body
rather than its mere recognition of fact.
1t is also shown that the city councils of
of Washington, under the authority OF
the act OF Congress touching the terminus
of the Metropolitan or Point of Rocks road
fixed II a site of the present depOt of
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. find
therefore, that the law sanctions the defend
ants depot on its present site, AM is North
capitol street tracks. Whatever damage
therefore, they may have OcCleiOECl the
plaintiffs lot, the defendant j. LOT answer
able for.
The plaintiff claims that tI., DEFENDANTS
ID street track is unlawfully aid and used
concur in this view. The streets of Wash
lngtOn city are the exclusive property Of the
United States, which possesses them in far
Hence any person or corporation using them
without express license from the United
states commits purpreSture, and is liable
10 any individual damnified thereby, as well
as 10 the United States. Being the property
of the United States, and dies gnated as streets
on the plat of the city. the presumption is
against the lawfulneSs of their use for any
other purpose than as streets. In this case il
Is shown that railroad corporation is pre-
venting legitimate use of a street, viz: as
a means OF access 10 the AUDITING property of
The plaintiff. What authority does il present
in Justification? The defendants counsel
point 10 the act of Congress of 1885, and the
ordinance OF the Washington councils an
proved January II, 1861. Mr.. Muzzy answers
the conclusions of the counsel of defendant
from the acts quoted, and after quoting nu-
merOuS authorities To sustain his views saws:
- ind, then, that the ordinance of the Wash
ingtoD council OF 1861, purpOrting To legalize
The ID street track, was not made in purSu-
ance Of authority conferred by Congress- and
consequently did not effect its purpose. /
find further, as matter OF law, that the de-
PENDANT is liable TO plaintiff for all damage
caused by its unlawful occupation of ID street
with a track"
He says the rule of damage applicable here
Is that the plaintiff is entitled 10 recover the
interest during the continuance OF the dam
age on the difference between the present
value of the land and what would be its value
If the damaging cause were removed, and
awards the interest on 10,669.23 from Jan
uary, 1S12-Ss43.S6.
The defendants excepted TO this report, be-
cause the referee erred in deciding that the
D-street track is unlawfully laid, and that
plaintiff is liable for damages for occupation.
The plaintiff also excepted because the re-
fierce erred in not awarding damages from
the LIST day of January, 1870, as claimed; in
finding the location OF the defendants depot
and tracks across North Capitol street TO
have been lawful, and in the rule he has laid
down as a matter of law in his estimation of
damages.
The argument was resumed this morning.
THE LATE LIEUT.. ESSEX, OF THE POLICE
FoRCE--A meeting of the officers and mem
bers of the Metropolitan police force was held
last night AT The office of Major to