The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-11-15
ROCHESTER ExrENsIoN.
The Arguments Of oiher Counsel
Made Yesterday.

The hearing before the county commits
siOners was continued yesterday morning.
when City Solicitor Coombs presented his
argument in behalf Of the city, and also as
counsel for Mr.. William w. Mitchell, for
whom he also appeared.
Shortly after 10 O'Clock. the commissioners
being prepared to proceed, Mr.. Coombs
commenced his argument which consumed
two hours In Its delivery. He commenced
by calling attention to the attitude OF the
parties to the hearing and the duties which
devolved upon the commissioners. who are
con stituted a quasi judicial tribunal and
whose action should be governed by legal
rules and principles
He dlsclaImed any intention to appeal to
sympathy or to prejudice, but reminded the
commissioners that the city had already
dealt very literally with this railroad and
asked that the city should be treated as fair
ly as would be an individual land owner.
The rule Is that the land owner shall be
accorded full and just compensation for all
injuries direct and consequential, and hav-
ing commented fully and at length upon
the testimony, and claimed an award
should be made upon the following basis;
1-Value Of land actually taken.
2-Consequential damages to the remain
der based upon, first, the character and sit
uatlon and the present and probable use Of
the remainder; second, the probable use Of
the railroad and its effect upon adjoining
| land-which he claimed was thereby rem
| dered less desirable for use or for sale.
| EDanger from fire which, although 10
| does not enhance the cost OF Insurance, oe-
casions constant fear and dread OF danger
Applying these principles to the facts
| shown by the testimony, he claimed that the
commissioners should award the sum OF ST.
| 500 to Mr.. Mitchell and about $4,000 to the
| city.
gument, said that the testimony shows that
there being no single grade crossing the 10
| cOmOtiveS will neither whistle nor ilnB
| bell. The question raised as 10 whether OF
| not the commissioners have heard US as mat
| ter OF courtesy, or from necessity, Is OF httle
conseouenee They are the legally appoint
ed Appraisers TO estimate the damages IN THIS
case. They are 70 welgh sne pHt NE thaiT
own, not those OF the witnesses. expert tes-
timonyis nearly always pIejudicial testimony.
It can be had in any case TO help either side,-
but actual sales and actual values are safer
guides. The law q the case Is simple. One
leading case has been quoted, but much as
preachers quote scripture, by dwelling upon
particular portions. The conclusion OF the
case gives the true rule: The market value
before the taking, less the market value az
ter the taking, gives the damage suffered. It
has been said that the damage for all time TO
come must bs reekoned In one payment.
This Is true Of every purchase and sale.
The Deering front field has been divided
by Henry Deering aud General Fessenden,
two careful business men. Mr.. Deerings
testimony shows that for the purposes OF ui-
vision the best Of IL was reckoned at SlOOO
per acre, the balance at less. MI Deerlng
wished, he says, TO buy portion neTI 70 sI
road, and General Fessenden offered u az ~
cents a foot, the best Of the HELD, anu III. III,
Deering did not take IL. Mr. Fessenusn sen zen
fixed his price for his eight acress az s.V,OOO
before the extension was Vosst tsaion aIo ssas
| voted when Mr. Conant and MI Wesc0tt
| noneht h at his price. Now i9r Ine mere
cpossing of MS half Of this land In lts poor
part Mr. ,bOe DeeTOg t5o whole S value S and to re
| taIn SUBSTANTIALLY all the property besides.
Mr. Moulton spoke OF Mr.. WescOtts Der
sonaI interests as a property holder. lie
said MIR. Wescott wants all that belongs TO
hlm 6'lro lie states that 10 cents foot for the
land taken will make him whole Tor actual
and consequential damages. Mr.. Deering's
claim cannot justly be reckoned at any nigh
er rate. The sales Of lands n 10 Una tnat vicinity,
and the estimate OF the DOW neld snow that
IL ought not 10 be any more.
The statement Of Mr. MichelPs claim
shows Its own absurdity. He has located
himself close TO a railroad track. He will
get no more annoyance than he already
mas The extension crosses only the unused
flats In the rear Of his premises, and yet he
wants $500. more than twice what his
whole lot cost him.
Mr.. Moultun said in reply 10 the assertion
that the extension had been built In defiance
of public opinion, that IL had a majority OF
1000 votes in a full poll after long discussion.
He said the railroad was willing 10 pay
what was Justly due.