Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-08-08
Speciai Assessmenss for Street Improvc-
mcntS.
A TEsTC BEFORE THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS
AN APPEAL DISALLOwED.

Mr. Franklin II. Mackey, Of the law firm Of Crit
tenden Mackpy, appeared before the Commits
sloners yesterday afternoon and argued question
which IS regarded OF considerable Importance at
the District buildings at is q question:" said
Mr.. Mackey to a STAR reporter. (which directly
interests at least 25o0 taxpayers OF this CITY,"
The question argued related to the special assess
ment against the property OF Mrs NJ. c. Hender-
son, fronting 23l feet on NJ street northwest, be-
tween gath and 25 h streets This property was
assessed according to fronts for special improve
1875 was again ina assessed for ana
on cath street, sl,os5.sa The as
sessments were subsequently paid, with
1879, MIS- Hend '-son asked for revision OF the as
se>sment, claiming that no special benefit had
CURED her lot by the and she cites
board OF audit allowing her s. 1000 as damages for
INJURIES to her property by reason OF the said
meht said that this is but one Of many where
the property assessed has been absolutely injured
by the Improvement upon the adjoining street.
that other lots have been which have
been lr5ey and specially benefited by the
improvement. The many property owners and
taxpayers OF the District, who have been thus
wronsfuily burthened and embarrassed with these
assessments look to the decision OF the Commits
SionerS In this for just relief. He asked the
consideration OF the following propositions:-l>t
OF Congress approved February 2l 1871. ana the
second section OF the act of the legislative assem-
bly, approved August 10, 1871. every assessment
pIhlc works against the adjoining property is er-
roncous II the property was not specially ben e.
of Congress ap ,rov d June 10, 1878, and the net
approved June q. 1879, 1t becomes the plain duty
OF the Commissioners, where written complaint
has been made by the persons designated. and
within the time stated by those acts that the said
as. ments are erroneous a.. TO inquire into the
fact whether or not the property in question has
n la " IN I'm ND
IL found not to have been so benefited, to revise
and correct each erroneous assessment and to
thereof to the per on entitled to receive the
3D. That In all cases where damages have been
awarded by tn" board OF audit for injuries to
property by reason OF special improvements, such
award should be accepted by you as conclusive
evidence that tie property has not been specially
benefited by the Improvement, and is not, there
lore, subject ID the assessment.
Mr. Mickey, in the course OF his argument,
S Tisr a, an opinion OF Assistant Attorney
all property adjoining an imnrovement
That ImprovemSn lie e also quote, ' statemeSt
supporting the view that an award OF damages is
evidence that the property Was not benefited and
Should no. ne assessed.
ma1ter?" esS dTHE STAR reporter of Mr.. Markey.
The result will be-" said Mr. Mackey, 9TH t the
commissioners VIII have 70 issue about al.
dltionhl IN drawback certificates. There ara at
least 1900 lots in this city in just the same condi-
tl0n as this one OF MIS- HenderSOn'S We hardly
an; lcipa'e decision by the Commissioners in our
favor, though we would like to get one.
lt Is matter OF so much responsibility that the
commissioners would hardly be likely TO do what
We ask without mandate from the court. The
proceedings at present are simply preliminary.
We will issue a m.indamus in the fall"
The property OF Mrs. Henderson was, before the
special improvements were made, located four
Ieet above grade and surrounded by a handsome
stone wall. The street was cut down twelve feet,
leaving the place up in the air, where 1t can be
q
derson patti S25 600 for the property originally. 1t
IS Claimed that II has greatly deprecated In value.
although the surrounding property has doubled in
value on account Of tue Improvements
y, MeSsrS. VIM Dickson, Solomon J. Fague and E.
W. Whitaker, representing various claimants
whose cases present features similar to that OF
Mrs. Henherson'S were present at the interview.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
After the hearing the Commissioners held q con-
sIltation and ordered letter to be addressed the
gentlemen, stating that after careful consldera-
ton OF the matter they had decided that such as
sesame nts were not erroneous, and their appeal
was diSaltOWpd