Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-06-17
THE LIBRARY SITE JURY.
They Hear Statements 0f Owners 81
Property I'm square go.

The Jury on the library site met this morning
to give the property-holders OF square 80
pennsylvania avenue, LIST, ID and streets
south,) a hearing. Mr.. r. r. Perry. represent
ing Mr.. ID. McMenamin asked that the jury take
the testimony of Mr. Jacob Neihmyer as ~
what IL would cost to remove his (McM.s stock
In trade, monuments, tombstones, &c. district
Attorney Worthngton and his assistant Mr..
Tsggart, objected. Mr.. McMenamin claimed
that IL will cost $4,000 TO remove his stock
safely; that IL will consume ten weeks of his
time and interrupt his business causing him a
loss OF $5, 900. and will destroy his good will
and damage him SIC, 200. The jury refusing 90
hear the testimony the matter was submitted
TO Judge Cox, holding the District court. and he
referred IL TO the General Term. Mr.. Worthing-
ington Oh the case being taken up, said the
court was without Jurisdiction, and Mr. Perry
claimed that IL had Jurisdiction. The court re-
tired for consultation.
of Mrs. Sarah l.. Berry, represented by Mr.. c. ii.
Cragin, who owns subs TO 4, at the corner Of
on the avenue and 1891 on I'd street Ii was
stated that this was the homestead. and they
would not take e. less than $4,000 for the prop.
valuation they put on IL was % per foot with
the improvements, aggregating $50, s09.50.
who owns % feet adjoining Mrs. Berry's prop
erty on the west, sub 3, stated that the DWELL
! ing cost 81 900 and the ground $4,000. Mr..
Edmund Hudson, the owner OF part iot Sub.
10, stated that he valued the ground at $1.15
per foot and the buildings cost $4,000. He
$1,000 for the building. Messrs. Nj. q. Emery
and SW. Tullock, trustees, were called and Mr..
that the iandrpart 10, sub To-. fronting on
South A street and Pennsylvania avenue,
each 20 feet-he valued at ~ per foot,
81 O00 j. K. Bucfller, owner Of sub 13, lot 5,
said he valued the improvements at 81 900,
and the ground at $3.50 per foot. Agnes Nc
Laughlin, sub Ia, stated She valued the land mt
SO per foot and the houses AT $1,000 for one
and $500 for the other-S9,O00 in all. X. &.
Bowling representing lspt A. fronting ~ on
aufh SIR lafn I fQaf WI raj,
resented by his brother, who stated he valued
IL at $l.75 per foot Sub "a, fronting SO feet on
Sl.25 per foot and the two houses at $450 each.
The property OF George M. Miller, deceased,
32x5O feet, at the corner OF south A ana "a
Miller, who valued the ground at 92so per
foot and one house at sl 400 and the other
$500. The National Metropolitan Insurance
company, owner Of pit Sub 19l, fronting 20
on I'd street by 100 feet, was represented by
$500 and the ground 81 500, which was about
81 20 per foot, making a total OF %, 800. Mrs.
Chew's property, sub 8, fronting % feet on
Pennsylvania avenue, was represented by Mr..
8. Maddox, who said the house cost $4,000 to
build, but he valued IL at $4,000 and the
ground at $2 per foot She claimed $1,000 in
DECISION OF THE COURT IL GENERAL TERN
ON M'MENAMIN's APPLICATION.
The judges (Hagner, James and Merrick)
were in consultation some time, and the inst
named rendered the decision that Justice Cox,
consider the application OF McMenamin; that
the jury was under the order and direction Of
the court, and IL, for the purpose OF their In
formation, they saw fit To apply 10 the court Tor
Instructions; they might do so. Others, IL they
saw hit, had the same right. The jury may act
on cases. and appeals be taken from their de.
cision, and IL was "A matter which the district
Judge could properly certify. Another question
was: Had the jury the right TO hear testimony,
and should they he admonished II they refused
TO hear IL? The court held that they had the
right and could use the testimony In connec-
ton with their own judgment In making
the testimony taken. The court held that the
jury was right in not considering the aIpiica-
ton OF Mr.. McMenamin and taking testimony
on the points suggested. The attention Of the
jury, the government, and all pertaining TO the
owners To the value OF land might embrace
the inquiry of the jury, but IL would not ex-
tend beyond that.
Reference was made to the act and the court
said that the aim OF Congress appeared To be
for the jury TO ascertain the land value. II
made no reference TO stock on the land, or loss
sustained by its removal, loss OF business by
changes. This being the fact the jury had
nothing TO do with these motions, and did
right in refusing TO consider them.
The case was relnanded TO the district court,
with directions to pass an order In accordance
with the views expressed.
Tomorrow the jury will hear those interested
In square 731, and probably will be ready TO
hear those Of square S29 on Monday.