Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-01-20


ceived as an addition to the report already
made BY the commission.
Tho court finally decided to postpone the
decision Of the matter Of receiving the affidavit.
to which objection was made, until tomorrow
morning.
Mr.. Lambert said that Mr.. Jones was ready
to be examined by the court. He then con-
| nnued his argument. passing next to the con-
nderatlon OF the Shoemaker tract, holding, as in
the cases OF other tracts, that there were incon-
sistencies in the awards and that the awards
were contrary to evidence.
10 ARGUMENT cN THE GOLD QUESTION.
Mr.. Lambert did not argue the exceptions
relating to the rejection Of testimony relating
TO gold claims, as the court had already passed
| on that matter. He passed ON to the argument
| Of the exceptions alleging misconduct on behalf
OF the United States in placing witnesses on the
stand who had been, as it WAS claimed, pre-.
| JUDGED by having placed in their hands u list
| of the prices fixed by tho managing commits
! sion and being informed of the prices accepted
| by some Of the property owners; and
error on the part of the commission
| in admitting tho testimony of such witnesses
against the objection and protest Of the prop
| erty owners. Mr.. Lambert continued his argu-
ment until the adjournment OF the court for the
day.
WHAT Mr.. sEuFFERLE SAID TO Mr.. JONES.
The District attorney filed during tho day the
affidavit of Mr.. Geo. ]. Seufferle Of tho apprais-
ing commission. denying the statements made
by Mr.. Samuel NJ. Jones. The affidavit dated
January IS, sets forth shat said Samuel NJ.
Jones did call upon this depouont at his, de-
ponents, place of business and propounded
certain questions to this deponent, first among
which was this question::
"'Is the published report in TIE STAR Of the
award for my parcel correctT
'Deponent informed said Jones that he, de-
ponent had not examined the report in The
STAR and advised the said Jones to examine
the report of the appraisers filed with the
court.
Said Jones then stated that if The STAR re-
port was correct the appraisers had done him,
said Jones, great injustice; that Watson, the
owner OF an adjoining tract, had been given
more than was given him, said Jones, and that
tracts SO and IS had been given O great deal
more than was given him, said Jones, and said
Jones wished deponent to explain why it wss
done. Deponent replied that the lands in the
tracts named were worth more on account OF
their location and character; whereupon said
Jones exclaimed that his land was as good as
| any of them.
'Deponent stated that he. deponent, differed
with him, said Jones, and that all Of the com.
missioners to appraise, after the most careful
consideration, had agreed upon that point, and
deponent suggested at this time that said
Jones had been allowed so per cent more than
he, said Jones, had paid for tho tract eighteen
or twenty months ago; whereupon said Jones
| stated that he was satisfied with the price al
lowed him, but could not understand why he
was allowed less than his nei8hbors.
''Said Jones then stated that he would have
the matter Investigated, and deponent then
| told him to 90 ahead as quickly as he pleased.
JONES AND HIS ATTORNEY.
Said Jones then stated that his attorney,
Mr.. Lambert, was going to See Mr.. Norris
chairman Of the commission to appraise, in
| reference to the matter, and that he, said
Jones, thought he would see this deponent.
'Deponent had known said Jones for many
years, and when said Jones called deponent
supposed the visit to be friendly one.
THAT in the conversation had between said
Jones and this depOnent said Jones did not ask
the following Question, namely: Upon whose
| testimony did you make your award? Nor did
this deponent make answer thereto as follows
| as stated in said affidavit of said Jones, namely
We thrust aside the testimony. We considered
| that we knew as much about the values of these
lands as anybody and did not consider the tes.
| timony OF the Witnesses Nor was anything
| said by deponent at said interview to any
s %Sa purp0r On o. the contrary hs
said Jones indicated the contrary
| in reference to the proceedings and action Of
| the appraisers. In the course Of the CONVEX.
| sation with said Jones deponent did advert. al
above stated, to the fact that said Jones had
been allowed so per cent more than he, said
Jones' had paid for the land eighteen or twenty
months ago, and further said that the most in.
| ferior and least valuable part OF the lands OF
said Jones had been taken for the park and
| that the most valuable remained to him, and
that the testimony of the witnesses in the case
| had shown the widest diversity and creates,
difference of opinion in regard to the values OF
lands in the park and that the appraisers in
| making their awards had exercised their best
judgment in the premises. In the course oil
| said. conversation with said Jones deponen
stated in detail to said Jones the differences in
| topography between his tract and the tracts OF
land that he referred to and the particular fea
lures Of disadvantage to the portions Of hii
land taken for the park in comparison with the
others.
THE APPRAISERS AND TESTIMONY.
'Afiant further says that it is not true thai
the appraisers did not consider the testimony
Of the witnesses introduced before them as tG
the value of said lands; ON the contrary thereof
he says that they did consider all the testimony
and evidence introduced by any and all parties
| relating to the value Of the lands, and upon al
| the evidence, facts and circumstances they
based their appraisement and returned what in
| their judgment, based thereon. is the fail
| market value of each Of the tracts.
And affiant further says that it is not time
as stated in the affidavit Of the said Jones, thai
| the appraisers did not award him any compen
sation for the fact that the line of the said parl
| bisects his dwelling house; on the contrary
| thereof, he says that the said appraisers tool
| that fact into consideration and allowed said
Jones what in their judgment, based upon the
| evidence, facts and circumstances before them
was o reasonable compensation to him there
| for in fixing the amount awarded him."
| AN AFFIDAVIT OF HIS COLLEAGUES.
Mr.. Seuferle's affidavit was accompanied BY
an affidavit Of his colleagues Messrs. Norris and
Burchell, setting forth substantially what Mr.
Seufferle does as to the consideration of testi
mony and the allowance to Mr.. Jones for the
| fact that the park line bisected his house.