The Jersey City news., 1892-06-04
BOULEVARD AWARDS.
First Report of Section No.
2 Commissioners Ger
tioraried Today.
BENEFITS NOT TO BE CHARGED.
A Suit That May Prevent the Early
Completion of the Great
County Drive.

The Commissioners on Section No. of
the Boulevard filed today their first re-
port and made awards to six owners.
The report was made up so as to present
each possible phase of condemnation. SO
that when taken into court on certiorari
the whole question for the entire route
can bo settled.
The following are the cases;-No. 1,159,
Josiah II. Gautier. lots 63 and 65. block
1880, Bergen avenue near Pamrapo ave-
nue.; these lots were originally about 100
feet; the road takes off 50 feet; MIR. Gau-
tier is awarded si2O for his land.
but charged $500 for benefits. So
he will receive $500 net. The
owner on the opposite side of the
street will get the same benefit without
paying for it. No. 1185, lots Is to 10.
block 1,26s. on the corner of Danforth and
Bergen avenues belonging to Martin
O'Elaherty. In this instance valuable
store property is takeD:-Vne Commls-
sioners allow $500 for lands taken, 500
for building bisected, and charge Sl25
for benefits to one lot which will be left.
Mr.. OFlaherty will thus net $4,000. The
Commissioners estimate that his build
ings are worth S400 TO any one to move
one.
Mr.. O'Flaherty has valuable business
property on this corner. probably the best
in Greenville, so that while the price for
the property is satisfactory, he thinks he
should be allowed handsomely for his
business.
No. 1lS6 Charles Gassman, lots is to IS,
Block 1856. Danforth avenue; this
adjains O'Flaherty. Mr.. Gassman has
plot fifty by about one hundred, on
which he has pleasant home. The road
will take small gore about one-tenth of
a lot off the corner of his lot. but by W1p-
ing out O'Flaherty's store. place Mr.. Gass-
man on the corner; the Commissioners
allow in this case 500 for lands taken,
but they find that Gassman is benefited
much more than that sum, so he Will re
ceive nothing except the privilege of be-
ing on the corner OF the Boulevard. This
award does not meet MIR. Gassman's
views, as he demanded $4,000 before the
Commissioners for damages.
DENIES THE CoUNTY'S RIGHT.
No. 1.206, Henry Schoppert, lots and
| 6, Block 1856 Fifteen feet is taken off
| the front of these lots, and Mr.. Schoppert
would probably have been without nm
award If the Boulevard did not take off
| the front of his house and saloon adjoin-
| ing; they will have to be moved back. For
| this he is allowed $3.50 Mr.. Schoppert
| denies the right of the county to compel
| him to remove his buildings.
| No. 120S-David w. Oliver, lot Ais,
| Block 1851. on the corner of Bergen
| avenue and Warner street, fifteen
Of this property, which is vacant.
! MIR. Oliver Is allowed $270 for his lands,
| but as his benefits are estimated at $400.
| he will get no cash but only the boule-
ward. This case differs from Gautier's in
| that the owner on the opposite side of the
street will also contribute some of his
lands.
No. l, ,223, Maria Mangles, lot 6, block
! 2S2. This is an extraordinary case.
| Mrs. Mangles owns SIX acre tract on
| the Western hill slope, which can only
| be reached by a private lane, Known to
the old residents as Midwirters
| lane; the boulevard intersects her lands
and gives her two front cages thereon.
| For the acre which is taken and II small
| gore which is spoiled she is allowed s., $50.
| She is charged for benefits sl,250; she
therefore nets Sl,030
| The report is quite voluminous and was
| prepared by Mr.. Edwards, the Special
| Counsel on this section: it is drawn in
such way as to expedite review in the
| Courts as the Freeholders do not deem
| it wise TO have all the awards made
until all fear of further litigation is at an
end; with this end these test cases have
been made up with great care.
THE AWARDS CERTIoRARIED.
Charles l.. Corbin OF the law firm of
| Collins g. Corbin, when applying to Judge
| Werts today for a writ of certiorari to en-
able the Supreme Conrt to review
| the proceedings in the awards, made
| an argument full of legal technical
| ities which boiled down resolved
themselves into two specific points upon
which the writ was asked for. He
| claimed first, that taking benefit into con
| sideratiOu was not usual, and that
the Commissioners OF Condemna-
tion should only consider the
| condition of the property left
| by the condemnation proceedings. He did
not believe IL to be just 10 take property
from an owner and charge against it
| possible benefits. The next point was
that he doubted the constitutionality OF
the act permitting such procedure
| which the Legislature granted In the
| County Koad Act, Section o, Laws of
| 1855, which among other things provides
that the Commissioners shall proceed to
| view and examine the said lands, real es-
tate and other property to be taken in
laying out and opening OF said road
| and to make a Just and equitable estimate
1 and appraisement OF the compensation
| and damages each owner OF the real eE-
tate and land to be taken will
| sustain by reason of such taking.
considering in such appraisal the
condition in which each owners parcel
will be left after taking so much thereof
as will be necessary for said opening, and
the benelts that will result from such
/ road to the owner or owners OF huCu lHuu
and real estate. MIR. Corbin held that tho
constitution does not permit the selection
of an arbitrary territory 10 fix it.
TWO SIDES TO A STORY.
| Ex-senator w. ID. Edwards said In re.
ply that he represented the county ns
| special counsel. he said the report had
been made in such II manner that II con-
tested it would cover all questions
liable TO arise under the Coun-
" Road act. The ex-senator
claimed that the county had but followed
precedent in taxing private property for
public benefit and under that precedent
the awards had been made. He referred
to Section 10 Article | or the Constitution
of the State. which provides that
"Private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation;
but land may be taken for public high
ways as heretofore until the Legislature
shall direct compensation TO De made"
Mr.. Edwards holds that the thereto
fore" referred 10 means prior to 1874, and
then beneats could be charged against
property. lie insisted that under
the Constitution and the subsequent act
of the Legislature the awards had been
Justly made. The argument closed by
the statement OF Mr.. Edwards that he had
no objection 10 the issuing of the writ OF
certiorari provided it was made returnable
at the present term OF the Supreme Court
and that the writ should not act rs astay.