, 1876-12-28
THE COURTS.
Exaggerated Estimates Of the Val.
ue Of Hyde Park Swamps.
A Motion for New Trial In the Case
of tho Metropolitan Street. Railway.
Record OF Judgments and New Suits...
Miscellaneous Business.

r0fLnGatY 10 nave their say. IL naKeb Fa6t
Iltlercnre how mans pocket Is situated Will
reference to u mattcr, and 1t IA snJly dcmoratz
lug to amortal'a filth IN "dslntcrcstsd uptntous"
to consider how greatly tho judgment OF dif.
fcrcnt persona varies a. to the value Of the land
II, question according as ther pockets are affect
cd. Tuesday the land WINS worth 800 to s50o
nn acre, depending on location, and ycstcr-
day tho property was valued at s8, 600 10 $1,000.
George W. Waits, surveyor, was recalled
yesterday morning, md testified that the land
could bo easily drained by cutting one or two
drains eight to fourteen feet deep aud afty feet
Wide through tho land. The earth could bo
throwu over on either side, thus raising tho
grade, and the e1pensa would not be worth
moro than to IL cents cubic yard. Thcsfdes
OF tic drain could ba finished Of ornamentally
60 as to make 1t attractive.
r. ". Dobson, also surveyor, testified that
tho average 1ovc1 Of thc land IN question Was
ono and a half to two feet above tho loyel Of the
lake In 1873 and 1874.
Fernando Jones, an OLD settler. vas the first
tract worth s6, 900 to 81, 600 an nerc. lIo owned
no property Ia the Immediate neig,Iborhood, but
had large amount fn South Chicago.
Francls II. Cooley estimated the land at
Christopher MecIcnnan, surveyor. md en-.
Encer, stated that he had made tho levels in
Tie vi|ingc Of Hyde Park, and that tho property
In question could be dralued at reasonable
cxpcnsc.
Douglas 8. Taylor, n rca1-estato dealer, Tfus-
Ice of Hyde Park and Chairman Of the Drainage
Committee, valued tho land at $1,000 to s5,0D
an acre. Lots With park frontage would be
worth $50 foot, and inside lots SO to ss5
;, 2: F. Wott: rated the property In dispute at
'i iienry Wissssr considered It worth $1,000 an
acfe. . tots t, with park frontage worth $50
> 4 long discussion then followed rs to whether
evldonco concerning the supposed value Of tho
land when when cut ug into lots wish a., park front
elhtnied that mono OF the benefits that flow
from the creation Of the park could DO constd-
cred ia the estimation Of tbs value Of tho land
Tho pFopcrty-o~ners. ou tho other hand, argued
now with the park In to front Of 1t. Il tho South
Park Commissioners had desired to tako the land
without such Increased value, they should ha7o
condemned It in 1900. But, having laid by and
not been diycstcd Of any Of thcir title, but had
right to receive the value Of It Just as It ia.
Judge McAfltstcr said tho owner OF the land
was owner for I'll PURPOSES up to tho tImo Of tho
tltlo was not oppressed BY my easement or any
thing that could bo held to diycst him OF any
right, or property, or value; but the land could
not bo considered as fronting on the park, but
value Of tho land. considering the proximity Of
the like, the nearness Of the parks, Of Hydc
Park u of South Chicago, Of the rairoad7
everything that Affected the value Of tho land:
such tracts or parcels as could be less conYcll-
lcIttly sold BY the acre than by smaller parcels,
eomo PORTIONS might BE- sold to better advau-
tagc by lots tllan by the acre, and ~ such case
ttan for It b. such smaller parcels, and II would
bo measured BY what he could rcalize for It In
M ordinary satG, whether In smaller parcels or
altogether. The trial will be resumed thas
morning. --.---.....-
AFTER THOSE FINES.
An application was made to Judge McAl1lster
after 5 O'clock yesterday afternoon on the part
Of the Errlgg Woman's Refuge and the House
tic eity to conpel tic latter 10 pay over 70 them
oil tue lines received By Police Juaticcs aud Jus.
ticos OF tic Poacc from prostitutes Of visitors
Of lousea Of lll-iame. The clty has, until re-
over such sums. The pettt!oncrs claim tiat the
statute Of 1869 makes 1t mandatory on tho city
to do so, mud that the provision is 80 plain that
there can eo no mistake aeout Y;
that tho adoption Of tic new charter repealed
this old spartal Inv, and exoncratod tic city
from my further liability In tho matter. Tho
petitioners Wcro both private corporations, and
the city h0s n0 right to mike donations to prl-
vlto corporations any moro than to private ildi-
ydnals.
To this tho attorneys for tho petitioners re-
piled that tho general law requiring the pay.
nothing to DO with The special iaw. The moneys
could therefore 10 paid ovcf. Tha special law
was not repugnant to tho general Law and both
therefore could stand at the aaHe t!mo.
Judge AfcAlliatcr said tho only question
seemed to be as to whether tho later general
| law repealed tho special law OF 1860. The city
seemed to bc trustee, according to tho pcttt!on-
them. tle then took tho papers, 1nell!d!ng tho
petition, which has not oycn been filed, iuto his
probably TucsdaS.
formal demurrer 10 tho petition % that aa ap-
peal could bo taken to Tho dlvjsion Of tho 6i1-
promo Court which sits Tuesday nt Springfield.
Mcsars. L. g. Pratt, Thomas MoEa1., and ueu.
| attcs appeared for petitioners, and Corporation
Counsel Anthony far tho city. -
TIE hETlioroLlrAN CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.
A motion for new trial wAs formally !nMlc
yesterday by tho defendants ~ The case OF tho
chiesgo W.T. 6ivl.on M % Raiway osnas Geapany. y III.
| Aver made tho motion On the ground that i'm
proper testimony on behalf Of Tho complainant
hull been admitted. aud other evidence for the
defendants excluded; that erroneous tnstruc-
tions lad been given to tho Jury, and that the
| verdict was contrary to tho weight Ut evidence.
| Judge Rogers said Ills opinion wAa still that
tho petitioners had no standing tu court, and
that tho franchise Ia question could not bs con'
demned.
Judge Lawrence remarked that he was willing
that tho petition should bp dls1nlsscd II Ill the
vital questions wore preserved, 60 that tho case
Springfield. He was satisfied to take tho bur.
den Of getting the gaso up rather than suffer a
delay until next summer, and would consent to
loae The bonctit OF the verdict In bis clients
favor.
Mr. Aver WINS not wllllpg TO accept such gen
erosty. lie thought that II tho Supreme Court