Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-01-07

Of the case upon the. legal Interpretation of
the record. Upon the hearing of the applica-
ton for judgment in the district court the re-
latOr offered to prove by competent testimony
that in making these assessments the board of
public works took the remaining cost of the
work after deducting the amount paid on the
first assessment and arrived at the reassess-
without regard to benefit or proportionate
benefit, and without regard to the form or po-
sitiOn OF any Of the parcels of land.
The evidence being objected to, was exclud-
ed and exception taken. The evidence should
have been received. The REALTORS had filed
their objection to the application for judg-
ments specifying that, among Others, as
grounds upon which the application was OPP
posed, they had right to interpose such OBJ
jections at that stage:.of the proceedings (Cun-
bingham VS.. City of st. Paul supra) upon the
objections so filed the matters involved were
presented to the court for summary trial and
determination. There was involved directly
and not collaterally the validity in the respects
specified in the objections, of the assessment
upon which judgment was sought, even
though the record made by the board of
public works had been such as to show affirm
atively on its face that the law had been COM
piled with and the proceedings regular, still
such record did not include the REALTORS in
outside the record that the fact was as they
offered to prove to be. Sec 81 of the act of
1874, above referred to, requires record to be
kept by the board of pnblic works of their
proceedings and makes such record to be
"prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated"
The statute making the record prima facie
evidence only. 1t is not conclusive, and the
fact recorded, or concerning which the
<~.l l>ac 70 No
may add that since the record is not conclu-
sive as evidence, it does not include either
party, the city or the REALTORS.
1t is further considered (although this is
not necessary to the determination of this
CASEY that the record above quoted does not
show af1irmatively that the proper rate of
assessment, even as to the charge for
the grading proper, was followed in
all respects, it does not show
that the benefits on account of which the as
sessments were made upon the property was
deemed equal to the case SO charged upon it.
The putting in of cutters and culverts, if a
necessary or proper part of the general work
of grading the street, may, we think, be done,
as was done in this case. The costs of the
several parts of the whole improvement need
not necessarily be charged upon real property
in the same proportion. lot might be prop
erly chargeable with part of the cost OF
grading proper, and yet be properly exempt
from assessment for culvert. Such questions
cannot be determined generally and for all
cases alike. The question is one each case for
the determination of the board of the public
works as one of fact, the critarion in all cases
being that which the statute has prescribed.
The benefit which may be conferred specially
upon the property by the particular improve
ment the cost OF which is sought to be ap-
portioned.
For reasons already sufficiently stated, the
judgment as to the property of the REALTORS
must be set aside and the proceedings remanded
to the district court for rehearing.
Ordered accordingly.
DICKINSON, J.