Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-08-25
SPECULATIVE AND rANcIruI.
Mr.. Perry Describes Some Testimony Taken
by the Rock Creek Appraiser.

by the Rock Creek Appraisers.
QUITE DISCUSSION ON HIS NOTION TO STRIKE
oUT-A PosTPoNEMENr OF ACTION MADE UNTIL
EnIDAY-soME MORE EVIDENCE PRESENTED
THIS MORNING.
This morning the commission to appraise the
property for the Rock Creek Park-Messrs
James l.. Norris. George ]. Seufferle and n. W.
Burchell-resumed its sessions, after q week 3
intermission, in the Circuit Court room. This
being the day when the government proposed
to commence its case the attendance was much
larger than during the latter part of the ses-
sions for the owners.
MRS. MEAps' TESTIMONY.
Mrs. Elenor T. Meads, who. with her son, owns
parcel q on the Daniels road, was called to tes-
tify in hel own behalf. She testified that she
bought twenty acres in July, 1881, for $4,000,
and she valued it now at II, 500 per acre and
u, QUO for the improvements.
Gen. James B. Colt, owner Of parcel As 1.-TWO
acres on the Military road), testified that he
paid 81. 600 for the land in February, 1890, and
he claimed its value now at 81, 500 per acre.
MRS. rRUEsDELL's MINERAL LAND.
MIR. James Coleman, for Mrs. Truesdell,
stated that since the adjournment both Mrs.
Iruesdeil and the government had had some Of
the material on her land assayed and they have
found the vein as they think much richer than
that found before and they proposed to so ont
today and secure specimens and make further
investigation and asked time TO do SO.
After sonic discussion the commission said
that if they could be ready by Friday morning
they would grant the time.
Mr.. fenwick, owner OF parcel II, testified
that on his place there were 400 panels of
fencing worth GO cents per panel and 200 pam
els worth 80 cents per panel.
Mr.. Page testified that his we'll was worth
about $500 and also offered a map showing
how his property could be subdiyided and ter
raced down to the creek.
MR.. PEREY's REMARKS.
At 1890 o'clock Mr.. Perry said that for three
weeks they had taken evidence on the part of
the owners and it will be recolected that he
objected to the testimony as to subdivisions on
railroads, but the commission had seen fit to
AXE the testimony. The same course had been
taken as to the capabilities for subdivision into
villa sites. He then read some of the instruc-
lions. and said that the owners had gone out
side. and the commission had been asked
to estimate the value for a use which
was entirely foreign to what they the
lands are to be used He then moved to strike
all testimony to the adaptability and feas-
ability of subdividing the land into villa sites
or building lots. and if the commission refuse
this motion, to strike out SO much of the testi-
mony as concerns the actual subdivisions
which were not of record when the act was
passed. he also moved to strike out all testi-
mony as to sales in Woodside, Brookland and
other places within and without the District and
beyond the limits of the park. After some dis
cussion as to the order of Argument. in which
Messrs. Jere Wilson, VIM. Stone Albert, Jas.
Coleman. Sam Maddox all claimed the right to
reply, Mr.. Perry proceeded with his argument.
INApMIssIBLE TESTIMONY.
Nv <hoS - .
property would be valued for as city or villa
lots in the future was not admissible and that
the evidence should have been confined as to
lands similar and adjacent and they should
not go SO far that the similarity fades out.
Their duty was as to the valley in Rock creek
and they had before them testimony as to
Rockville, Great Falls and other outside places.
They had had the bulls and the bears before
them, and had gone SO far that the stomachs of
at least two of the counsel had rebelied.
Mr.. Perry said his witness might be excused
till o'clock.
Mr.. Wilson suggested till Thursday morning.
Mr.. Perry remarked that he could take
care OF his own witnesses and proceeded to
read authorities, citing the case of Splitlog
appropriate name, for he a farmer)
in vol. rs, Pacific Reporter, 2O2 In
this the court said that evidence as to land two
streets away when building lots would not be
required for long time was inadmissibls. He
In Pennsylvania case he read the charge Of
the court in which the testimony as to the
adaptability to cut up into town lots was adj
mitted.
SPECULATIVE AND FANcIFUL EVIDENCE.
A number of the counsel and others laughed
at this, and Mr.. Perry remarking they were
laughing too soon, read the opinion of the Su-
preme Court reversing the Judge below, remark
ldg that such evidence is speculative and fam
citul.
Mr.. Perry also read a subsequent case re-
iterating the doctrine in the former. Sup
pose, Mr.. Perry said, "Jerry Simpson and the
advocates Of free coinage should succeed with
their measures next Congress. Would not
gold be worth premium, and where would be
the bottom of values2'
Mr.. Wilson-'I do not believe in free coin
age, but I'll have to vindicate Jerry Simpson"
Mr.. Perry continued, saying that they were
asked to adopt the speculative values of real es-
tate operators, and he asked that they confine
their awards to the present values.
MIR. Maddox said that the motion did not
affect Mr.. Pages property, and asked Mr..
Perry what testimony in his case he would
strike out.
Mr. Perry said he had already read one vol
ume Of LOO pages and there was another to
come 1t was the work of the commission
should they grant his motion to strike it QUIT
WHAT SHOULD BE STRICKEN OUT.
Mr.. Wilson remarked that it was for Mr..
Perry to point out what he desired to strike
out and they were entitled to know exactly
what should be stricken out He cited
the subdivisions of Malvern and Rose
mont parks, and asked if the owners to ascer-
tain the value had not the right to offer testi-
mOny as to other parks or subdivisions.
Mr.. VIM. Stone Albert said he was not pre-
pared to so on with this discussion. They had
taken the recess with the understanding that
the government was going on with
its testimony and had no notice
OF such molten. He called atten-
ton to the fact that Mr.. Perry had cross-ex-
amined the witnessesas to values at length. and
asked if he Lad not waived his right to make
this motion. If the testimony was to be di-
vided it would be found that that brought out
by Mr.. Perry was sufficient for them to act.
lie had a number of authorities. but was not
prepared to go on now and he asked that the
question go over till tomorrow morning
Mr.. Perry said it was unusual for the gov
ernment's counsel to be charged with taking
snap judgment.
Mr.. Albert disclaimed any reflection.
Mr.. Wilson united in Mr.. Abert's request.
Mr. Perry said he would not object.
OBJECTED TO PosTPoNEMENT
Mr.. Coleman objected to any postponement,
and for himself did not think that under the
circumstances a reply should be made.
Mr.. Atchison said that Mr.. Perry was en-
titled to q decision OH his motion before pro-
ceeding further. As he was acquainted
with Pennsylvania practice he desired to
state that on the law OF eminent
domain that state was conservative, but