, 1879-01-29
. catch Of Opinions by the Ap-
nellate Bench Of the First
District.
MIN city Appeals from the Ap'
'' pellato Decision In the
Gago Case.
.-,no = Newspaper for Libel ana
Getting Six Cents DAM
ages.
NEW Suits, 1nsolvenctes, d.
W. vorccs, judgments, Con-
LESSONS, Etc.

se''eu tort utqrluv ". Tile City pf Chicago. Il
t1' .a ,npes] frum III, application Tor the con
H..to, n. n trsctal a<Rrssncnt to fnPct lie
u'" .. II wtlrplnr Suite street 10 width ot
.a,,.., y,on, ttarrlsu,,tuT TwrlitIntrcct. Fu1Aw-
~ ~, .ru,n,fs pf Tho opinion, Whtrh WAS dcstr.
.,eJ bv ju.tiee Sheltl''n:
1hsrr wa attpnlaton tn tho ruse that sthtc
.,,,ct IL 10 frc, vide fro the river 10 Madison
.,a.ct tfst feet frntn Madison I" Jacksor, u
sn., roct.ou 10 tlnrrisaf,, With condemnation
,..,ea,ocs to widen 10 100 fer. lrtwcen tfrso
,.,c.t.: 70 fec: vile from Harrison to Twenty.
.,cont GG feet frnm Fwcnty-aerond to tlc city
,,uttt. II appeared III The nsscssinnht-roll thHt
~, ,ots no1tl, of tturr!aun street Or suntfI of
rx.lith rttert are thcseny afscfsc.'. Tho only
...,,or Is - tu Tho Instability oftle
/ 9,"L,wIne cyhlcnca by which appellant offered to
NOW flat the real estate hurslI Of Harrihon
,Tec, wuu!d he especially benetlteA BY tale in
r.verncut not less tilan *O ,'NO, mud real estate
ntau,h Of Twelfti, not less than S2o.000: sand
~ ,hs assetstly,,t, IN levicu upu,1 property
iNx,rn Harrison and Twelfth strects, was
Liza In .lie ratio of the heneits to tho lots
,tsnt,tiyely.' TIE evilenre was objected to,
nj tlr pDjretinn sustained iy The Court. Tie
4 r,s Yas presented on ihls evt'icnrc.
Hrr 9t5 OF thr nct relating to GltIca aud
,lIarcs. uuucr which this provcu'!tng ID Ind,
which p,uyidrs Tor lie trial hY Jury after tllere-
.Ssll aupear that tho premises Ut the obIcctor
ar a,scssei u,orc ur less than they Will ba beue
/ Ard, or than thelr prupuEttunntG share of The
rmt Of the Improvement. the Jury shall
10 dnd, and also 'tIc amount Tor which M s',si,
rendered accordingly. The evidence offered bo-
laE that
v,s benefited by the Improvement, and 20 tltnt
tlt sust was assessed upon on!y a part Of tho
!sopcrlY benefited T. seontcn,lct tlsat the facts
oaerc4l 10 lie proved would establish that every
10, ubIecsrd for WAS assrsked mere than lis pro-
pertouate sharc Of tic rost Of The improvement,
xhIrh was lie defense songht to 1e inale. But
~. l}9, prescribing t!W duties Of the Com
must 10 construed together: By. Sec.
ni.s!ouers 10 examine tiae lorality wllcro
.he Improvement Is propoactl to hc
made and The lots that will be specially
,hc total cost ot the Improvement will be Of
benefit 10 thu public, and wlIat proportion
ihtreot w,1l be OF benefit 10 the property to 10
benefited. and nppurtion the sauc between the
,aall bear s relative equitable proportion, uns!,
having paid sa'd amounts. to apportion and
aiiss1 tic amounts SO paid to bc of benefit to
The property, UPON the several lots In the pro-
portion IN which they will be sevcraily hene-
ttsl, provided that uo lot shall be assessed n
greater amount than Il will be actually bcne.
bts'l These swu tsngstin making tas asaess-
nrut by the Commissioners. under See.
~, 10 assess The lots III tho proportion in
which they will hc. scycraly Benefited"
md that 10 lot "elsaIl bo Rssesscd q greater
AMOUNT than It will be actually henehted," up-
psaresl To bo what Is put 1T ISSUE by Hec. 143,
alul Il would scem ahat lie worda "proport!on-
a share Of The cost OF the Improvement III tho
than tue words '.propurtion In Which they will
te eesetaliy bcneQtcd,h In Sec. 1aV. II The pro-
portEonate share of the cost ot the i'm pr0ycmcnt
taken 10 ss literal meaning mav be gone into, as
asa slnmsa by sppellapt, II wo'.1a, = 4 seems.
Pottiona u public benefits aud kpecinl benefits
lld ueen correctly fixed by tho Commissioners,
40 Inquiry which, was held not .permlssi-
ID In pagtn ". Chicago, - ILL.,, ~:
seem to bava been delivered In ulat
eaic adseltely to tlis position Of appellants. III
that case II was held tllAt the examination OF
WITNESSES must be confined to comparison OF
, l!s assessments objected to on particular lot
Elth general assesstncnt against al the other
t'ts II was Wis tl.r tic particular lot was
o'er or under assessed In proportion to the
general asseftulcnt-Bot nHdgF Ur OVer assessed
slen coR'patssl with property any knd every
she1t In isc rsy, which, according to fanclful
buttons Of witnesses, might b. thought to be
Ieheatesi, but whether the ashesament was just
y maue tu proportion 10 the a8scss1uent on the
c!atl " 81 lo's III tlc general assessment nga!nst
III III 1te o;llsr lots. thus limiting tue scope Ut
ins, ns sa1a'fy os!oto tue Jury to taig property
ot,'s"u, the csidrncc Offered hero as to
aae1arr property north md south Of
uiS trf1to1Y embraced In uiB assessment
fs's ~ ,rsclalY benefited 70 hagc becn proper.
slslnded hs irrelevant, Gccause without thu
~ saue aiM Beyond tho sronc Of tie tHvestI4atfon.
!Ee oninlon concludes by snytnE, ''Fu nre OF
'es oplhlon that lic acttuu u thu Commission
n' m uh'er tl'e dccislois Ut thia Court al11 under
f+
asu 1 s1nsius'ss ~ to the limit Of property spc.
.l,l9 e:asttcd. Flndiag no error III The cxclu-
Hdl be QtffrtpEl'a
IT, ,sudss l':key. having been Of eonnsel for the
.1!, ua hot participate iu the Lcclssou Ut this
Six CENTS DAMAGES.
x,!,t, aM New fotx 11mes Of Saturday hos uu
M'toIAi ttlatlru t0 tht suit brought against il
XII y a,. Ellison y. KeItt, ot South Caroln4, 1t
In, Ty'a" m,e ]ufy, Friday, found yerdct agaust
ntn.,my msy W aoubted. aaYs tas Tina. whether 1
,,I eTIt.p1peF ran b. ut oner aggressive, fearless
i,.s a auepeadeHt without bt,ux more Or les!
,tasaly ,,ssusaIy sns'l for ltbel.' III these days o
pssaauSe lawyers, a suit against Z newsijape
maot ,,la :! nes.ssanly very expensive luxury Io
,I,, ps!nt''!, ln n!no Susss ont of tei, lhea,
~. ~. nc instituted merely to silence uuplepsau
1tsm, H. ,.,s, or Induce The public to belieys lha
m. Nl.oh assasled Il esxcF ~ V!niicatu hin,sels
itsl. 'o'''' " snesc su1ts assef GOING Il
A,amsu!t nc su!t however, brought by Col. Kcitt be
irssI.a ~ quite different category, The plat,,
r.a,u uaa kElrvaacs for whlct hc matook hl;
'asus. ,1snsus. luz defendant had unwittIugly causet
ns ~ uioIseatiuu 10 moat sstiu,sblo apt
t.n tta*o's get!tetnaI,, Tor which ample satis!uc
sut,s a Sas ut accorded hiu,. No injury was Ii,
M.1It, aIa @!1t:h could LIT appraised lil court q
ts. tt..'a NJ misunderstanding existed Whiyh /
n'.'., interchange Vi Views could not have 70
lo"sa lS'sa. Ar. keitt sued tile Tsn<s Tor iujur,
due 90 n's reputation by the publication IT
risn stating that Col. Kc!tt, Of Newbufy,
~. st."y. while thu person really arssstss
~ laoHas keitt, of Nssbury, 4 fof
a,I ~ .ttass, born un the lseitt plantation,
d,.a,aluLef 'auLef'sfd ~ chattel BY Z y. kellt. TN
h.,.,' W al!l subsequsnt paragraph IN wAtvf
Ii paIn?4ioh ~ WIS justidel assumed lAe Eeputo.
inss 1.e!4tlolahip VI The .Austto 10 tlis fursne
H.. 49,, ~, WHICH assefl9oh fuEHsAe4 tAa anllnus
A,s,lh ph'oseeuti'I'. The 1i,aes ssys NV, " {
49, iys. ha'e dono u anY tImc Lad The pr,o
resented, that tssls EeIaiiuI.hip rested oi
~ easaal .Htstu. ! nj: lang.iaSe Ut the tlis
i.s:x..a W. vol make elcar .euougA distinction
u ssea ~ lxp hrit,a ul..!, though It rout4 b
E..al'i1 iAa'i14tltty hive i~rn held tu apply 10 TIL
r,,l.,., v1 " thcss who knew him, III publnatlu,
n,M W taro1e1 Inn 10 aou,x III. anuo, tuy
Lasr t. notofles}, oi which }4s T4pses scKrets t,
Ah1t tl4st 4r.,lanusn.u .t.t1.l L.,