Los Angeles herald., 1892-06-18
THE TEMPLE STREET DAMAGES,
The Jury's Verdict Fixes Them
at $4,000.
A Very Important Case Decided Yes
terday.
The Awards Of Damages Made to Various
Property Owness-A Brief Ke-
view of the Case.

luo Jury IN tuo 1omPio-btreot reRf6Q
ing case yesterday sgreed to verdict
and at $3.50 O'Clock Judge Shaw cam,
into department Eve OF the superio
court to receive it, in the presence Of thu
attorneys on both sides. In his instruc
tions the court on Thursday evening hat
submitted to the jury these questions al
the only ones for decision
First How much will the property o
each defendant be damaged BY the re-
grading Of the streets abuttins thereon
in the manner proposed blythe plaintiff
Second How much, If any, will the
property OF each defendant be benefited
blythe regarding OF said streets az pro
posed by plaintiff?
The verdict rendered accordingly was
this:
We, the jury in the above entitled
action, find. that the property of the
several defendants will, by the re-
grading Of the respective streets in the
manner proposed by plaintiff, be dam
aged and benefited In the amounts set
opposite to their respective names, az
follows, to wit: ss S.. ,l',s.
Ella n. Linde, north half lot II, block H,
' 1asssism % sis roth Is ss fsss Of lot 49, block
Mott tract; damages $29o9.
ss&.sss ss .sssS siosl s. Park tract.
"A. Jsnss. iSo1loo feet on southwest corner
eae los losspssss SiosH lS90 g. Not. r.ct
damages, %27A8. f9 K.w .s7T p g
Z. Ls!ronde. lot z. block o, Mott tract; dam
P. n Keller. south half lot II. bloch II. Mott
tract: damages, cas- i06O. fS W n
"A Williams, A0x100 feet of lot q, block o,
A. Strauss, pa1t'cf ists 8 and z, block H, Mott
s. sract; sa cs G feet front on Bunker Hill; damases
T. 3. Butler. N. 20 feet Of lot IS. g. 90 feet of
lot 16, block u. Mott trant; damages, 5000
B. 8. Moore. 8. SO feet of lot =, block H, Mott
tract; ( damage, S1.;. 5000. q, - -. :
sS's ss .fs seai t.l = sas e .Ssss sss
IF. Dotter, 72xx1l2 feet on 9. e. corner
r. !: Woodbury., lot O. Bunker Hill tract;
4. 8; 0rme, Let 1s. block n, Mott tract: dam
Mrs wiassen los 10, block q, Mott tract;
!. sesndry. byxi6ox feet on N. side Temple
=; Besudrys z35S 5Sxiss feet on 4. side Bunker
Bssndry s; Is1 oss ana D. Block % Park trsct
damages, sos. rs. I, W
= SssuSssy, lct Is, block %, Park tract;
J. g: Meyer, lots and 2, block 81. Park tract;
damages, $50; benefits, $3.50.
Totals, dam msges, $84 $3.50 80; benefits, $3.50.
. nstSnce az OF damages over benefits, 1884,
FRANx @. HALEY, Foreman.
The regarding Of Temple street has
been the bugbear Of city councils, and
the bona Of contention between the
West End people and the owners Of
Bunker Hill property for years. " s Z.
The matter has been several times
nearly compromised, but each time, for
some reason, failed. The last council
took the bull by the horns and passed
an ordinance Of intention to regrade the
street and early ip 1890 ordered City At
torney Mcfarland to bring an action to
determine the damages which would re-
suit to private property by reason of the
change OF said grade. Such an action
was brought, and the trialo Il has been
conducted thus far, and will be con-
Quoted to the end by Assistant City At
torney w. E. Dunn. whose efforts in the
matter are deserving Of the highest
commendation. i, eas is.ls sst 4 tas
The case involves the cutting down Of
Temple street from Grand avenue to q,
point just east OF Flower street, and the
making Of q fill from Flower street to.
Custer avenue. The cut at the crossing
of Bunker Hill avenue is about fourteen,
feet, and the fill at the deepest point
about eleven. It also renders necessary
the cutting down Of Bunker Hill avenue
and Hope street, and the raising Of the
cross Streets between Flower street and
Custer avenue. to correspond with the
change upon Temple. d .ss,s-5
The complaint was filed in July, 1890,
and contained the names of about l80
defendants. OF these about sixty have
remainder defaulted. The defendants
twenty-one different attorneys, and
claimed damages varying in amount
from $500 to SIC, 900.
The case was called upon May 9th
and for four days was contested before
of procedure. The defendants on the
top OF the hill made q bitter fight
against the right of the city to main.
tain the action and as there was no di-
rect PRECEDENT for it in this state, many
knotty questions were presented, but in
each case Judge Shaw sustained the
right of the municipality to maintain
its action. He decided also that the
city attorney and council had proceeded
properly and that the question of dam
ages was now the only one under consid-
Grafton. Eighteen Of the defendants
were represented by Chapman & Hem
dricks. Judge Hatch and Wells, Mon
roe & Lee demanded that their damages
be tried and fixed by jury. and upon
June I'd the jury was sworn to try these
cases. The values put upon these sew
eral lots to be damaged by the improve
ments varied from $50 to 1900 front
foot, according to the point Of view from
which the witness examined the same
and the damage varied from nothing to
q total destruction Of the property: The
hill people declared that the cut would
absolutely destroy their property, and
the west end witnesses with equal ferVor
swore that the hill property would
double in value the moment ground was
broken for the change. The most pecu-
liar testimony, however,. was that of
contractors and architects as "a to the
expense Of building retaining walls
where the cut was made. These men
are supposed to be disciples OF cold
figures, and when well-known architect
swore that q. retaining wall could be-
constructed for IS per perch, and was
followed by an equally Well-known
brother in the same profession who
swore that the same wall, of the same
material, would cost $32 per perch the
jury could have been excused for being
conf1rad Ihut vkhan vaIlIknovn scnr-