The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-02-01

site the Kenyon block. is from ten to twelve feet
or the west or lower side his nothing on the
east or upper side.
second-The face of this FL on the west side
O the strset is twelve Zee, east Of the west
Line Of the street
Ih1rd-The west face Of this I'll is supported
OF Kept in paacs by plaaks Rsutring against
vertical posts, twelve By twelve inches, sunk
into the ground
FouTsh-on the top OF these posts rests the
eastern line OF the sidewalk. the western line OF
watch Is supported by smaller vertical posts
sunk into the ground, within the line OF the
street Suca was the situation at least, before
the disturbance Of the surface OF the ground
hereinafter mentioned
Fiita-Tas ground descends rapidly from the
western face Of TIE 81 referred TO, towards the
Kenyon lot Sacn Is its natural condition.
sixfh-The street in my judgement was per
iectiy safe, and the sidewalks before the dis
torbancs herein stated.
NJ Kenyon desires and has commenced the
improvement OF the lot directly west OF that
portion OF Front street referred 10 above. In
order 70 carry on such improvement he has 10
cut down the incline near the foot OF the
smaller posts referred 10 above, and, as a conse-
QEeuce, the dirt has slid away from them and
left them without support aud In the air. And
not only so, but the dirt is also. by reason OF
such cutting, slid away from the larger posts,
thus threatening precipitation OF the entire
western I'll Of Front street opposite 10 such
lot, destroying the sidewalk and rendering the
whole thing dangerous.
Ar Kenyon, in carrying forward his improve
naents, took no adequate precautionary meas
ures 10 prevent the consequences, which are I'M
mInent
The question under the above facts Is, what
are the rights and duties OF Mr.. Kenyon, and
what are the rights and duties Of the city?
hat .rxof
90 use his own as not 10 iniure another.
The city had right TO place the supporting
posts | have referred to-large and small
within the limits OF the street. and Mr.. Kenyon
had no right to make such excavations ON his
lot, the direct tendency of which was TO endan-
ger, not only the sidewalk, but the street itself.
If he made such excavations, he must see to &c
that he took proper preeaution not to in!ure
others, and II he did not take such precaution
he is responsible for the consequences. His
duty in that regard is plain and obvious one.
In all such cases the rule applied has been uni
form, so far as the action OF the city is con-
eerned: Such rule is not only founded in law,
but has broad base in justice and equity.
Mr.. Kenyon cannot complain of any excep-
tional rule being applied to him. The city is
willing to extend TO Mr.. Kenyon and to every
one else every facility for the erection of the
building and the making of other improve
msnts, but il cannot afford to assume all the
damages created by persons desiring to
make such improvement 1t can make
no difference in the principle OF this
case that the city is one of the parties thereto
IL an abutting owner to Mr.. Kenyon's property
should attempt to excavate far below his
foundation without taking any precaution, or
adequate precautions. to prevent the falling of
the wall OF Mr.. kenyon's building, am certain
be, as an intelligent man, would see the full
force and justice OF the position occupied by the
city herein.