The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-10-22
ELEvATED RAILROAD DECTsroNs
Two Jpsenesss fsr Dsssgss Reversed by
tho Court OF Appeals.

Two Judgements ZOE ~e@skoS 1rNcFStu "
the Court OF Appeals.
ALBANY. Oct. 21.-1n the suit Of Edward
Roberts, respondent against the New York
Elevated Railroad Company and another. APP
pellants, the Court OF Appeals yesterday re-
versed the Judgment OF the court below and
granted a new trial. with costs to abide the
event. The property involved is the four four
story buildings on Third avenue. corner OF
Ninety ninth street. New York CITY. which were
ready for occupancy in 1883. tho defendants
railroad having been constructed In 1873 The
plaintiff claimed $4,000 as damages to ease
ments, and $4,000 annually. as the amount OF
the depreciation in the value and on tho use
and enjoyment Of his premises. The principal
question in this case ia as to the admissibility
OF tho opinions OF experts In reference to the
amount OF damages sustained by the plaintiff
by reason Of injury to the easements OF his
property caused by the building OF defendants
railroad.
The Court held that evidence as to what the
value Of the property would be with the CASE
mcnts alluded to. unaffected by defendants
acts. is proper. No dispute arises on that
point The controversy arises when the fact
that that value Is to be sworn to by so-called
export, and which opinion. speculative and un-
certain as It must be. is directed to the very
point which the jury is to determn.s, hyid"nce
value which In fact, does not and cannot exist Il
should be confined to those facts W9 9ir a tns
inteili gent judgment. and then the differences
to DO deduced from Thorn may be drawn Just
T SS the I1y ~ ary expert and In all
The great weight, o. authority" tho de-.
cision says, "bothin tho supreme Court and In
and + tGsEs i me shoSs
he ntrodHced Our eonclnsion T. that fo ;h aho
IN the nj ts snS nsw
granted with costs to abide the event., ~.
Judgment was reversed and new trial. with
s sSme &c court nS the G asM Maria 1oys
the Manhattan hallway Company and another
sy as lss fHsDessdsn wns eEER
street and Sixth avenue. abntting on the sle-
waited railroad. secured a Judgment awarding
erty and $1,000 81 as her fee damese. The sle.
waited railread company appealed from this
OF Roberts aet TIC same and Gray ast. the
same. impr2per and inc3mpetent evidence
pfdse II tbs his y Spo Of the tbs
There wore other erroneous rulings upon
mittcd. against the objection OF tho defend
ant. to prove the effect Of the operation Of the
sS Which, the pre
Wsre prohibited. upon her objection:
effects Of the road upon abutting promises.
| Much Of the damage which the plaintiff claims
was caused to her premises. II 1t was actually
caused to the extent claimed by hermust hayo
becn common along the avenue in tho vicinity
| Of her premises. and proof Of tho effects upon
| should have been received. The defendants
also offered evidence Us TO- tho effects Of the
| elevated road upon tho business and traffic in
| The plaintiffs premises consisted Of five four
| story fiat houses. with stores under them oc-
| cupied for business purposes. 1t was certainly
| competent for the defendants to show that the
| premises. so far as thcy were occupied for bus
actually benefited by the existence Of the