Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-04-05
NEW ROAD CONTEST.
The Board of Supervisors Devote Three
gassf0us fo Ir.

The Board of Supervisors Devote Three
Sessions to 1t.
The Board of Supervisors held three
sessions yesterday, in order to hear testi-
mony and arguments on the petition of j..
B. Green, Dwight Hollister and others for
new road in Road District No. II, to run
from landing on the Sacramento river
along the lands of Messrs. Hollister, Green,
Stephenson and Clark to connection with
what is known as the standard line road
leading back to the Stockton road.
A favorable report had been filed by the
viewers appointed by the Board.
w. A. Gett appeared for the petitioners,
w. w. Britton for the San Francisco Saw
ings Union, and 2. r. Beckley for Joe
Green, nom consenting land owners.
Mr.. Beckley objected to the Board acting
in the matter. on the ground that the Board
had not acquired jurisdiction of the matter
under Sections 1852, 1854, 1855 and 1856
of the Political Code, and Section 26SS of
the road law of the county. The follow
ing witnesses were sworn ard examined by
the petitioners: j. NJ. Stephenson, Dwight
Hollister. George B. Green, John Miller
and L. d. Green. They all testified that
the road asked for was public necessity.
Mr.. Britton argued at length in behalf of
his client. He claimed that his client had
as much interest in that section of the
county as any person in the county. The
San Francisco Savings Union was opposed
to the road because it took portions of its
land and would only benefit Messrs. Hollis
ter, Green, Stephenson and Clark. The
San Francisco Savings Union valued its
land there at not less than $500.
Mr.. Beckley called Joe Green, Benjamin
Bates and E. P. Figg, who testified as to
the value of lands, which would be taken
by the road. They considered the pro-
posed road a damage to Mr.. Joe Green,
over and above the value of the land taken.
According to the testimony great deal
of the land in that neighborhood is valued
at $500 per acre.
Joseph Green, Jr., testified that his
father would not take 81 900 per acre for
some of his land. One and one-fifth acres
of his fathers land would be taken by the
proposed road. 0ne-fourth of the amount
would be valuable fruit land. He valued
the fruit land which would be taken at $500
per acre. The alfalfa land which would be
taken was worth $3.50 per acre. The land
taken would be worth $500. The road
would run through his corral and cause
great damage. 1t would necessitate the
digging of new well, and the removal of
tree worth at least $50, which had been
preserved as shelter for cattle. 1t would
cost him $50 to make the necessary changes
of the corral. 1t would cost the county to
build the proposed road, in manner that
would make it a good road at all seasons of
the year, from 81 800 to $4,000.
At the evening session Joseph Green, Jr.,
testified that the proposed road was not
necessity, and would only benefit a few
persons. He estimated that the damage to
his fathers property would amount to
ST 068, and he would not be benefited at all.
Joseph Green, ST., testified substantially
the same as his son. He considered the
new road would put his building in great
danger from fire. He wanted the members
of the Board to go upon the ground and
view it for themselves.
]. M. Stephenson testified that only eighty
feet would have to be graded, and the grade
would only have to be about one foot high.
A good road could be made there, which
would be in good condition at all seasons
of the year.
Dwight Hollister was recalled, and testi-
fled to the same effect. He never heard of
any land in that neighbarhood selling for
81, 600.
The Clerk of the Board read a brief pre-
pared by P. ]. Van Lobensels and submit
ted by Mr.. Britton, opposing the road, on
behalf of the San Francisco Savings Union.
P.J. Beckley argued the case on behalf of
Joseph Green, taking the ground that the
law had not been strictly complied with by
the viewers. The Supreme Court in case
reported in the 10th Cal, had decided that
if the law was not strictly complied with
in the matter of laying out roads, that the
action was null and void. He reviewed
the testimony as to the amount of damage
m hic oil cd hot .,
to be built the Board should allow Mr..
Green 81 ,06S damages.
w. a. Gett argued the case on behalf of
the petitioners. The road asked for was a
public necessity. 1t was to create high
way over which a quarter of million
dollars worth of produce would be carried
to market. The property owners all
wanted the road built except Joseph Green
and the San Francisco Savings Union, who
where acting in the role of obstructionists
The petition and report of the viewers
complied with the law in every respect
The decision referred to by Mr.. Beckley in
the 10th Cal, was under the law as it ex-
listed in 1863. Since then the law had been
amended The only question for the
Board to decide was whether the road was
public necessity. Of this he thought
there had been ample evidence given.
The report of the viewers fixed the dam
ages to Mr.. Green at $50, and to the San
Francisco Savings Union at $50
On motion of Mr.. Ross the report was
adopted and the prayer of the petitioners
granted by a unanimous vote of the
Board.
The bills of James Comfy for $3.50, and
L. d. Green for 500 so were allowed
+. j. Ferguson, Overseer of Road Dis
trict No. 10, filed his quarterly report,
which was referred to the Committee on
Roads and Bridges.
I. ]. Brown, Overseer of Road District
No. I, filed his quarterly report and it took
the same course.
C. NJ. Chapman, Road Overseer of Road
District No. 6, filed his quarterly report,
which was referred to the Committee on
Roads and Bridges
Finley Mcmillan, Overseer of Road Dis
trict No. 3, filed his quarterly report, which
was referred to the Committee on Roads
and bridges.
SPARE THE BUCKS.