, 1892-04-23
ANOTHER REV ERSE.
An Error IN the Superior Court Of
King County.


f Ega1a4svo =, rs,.,,ao,s:,,,
t : - ~ = = R1O'
{ PIRATE Strip of Land for the
Pmrnoses of Rtogst ~ xv.v A..
,
BWAld a Railroad.
rNotiee- decisions of +bo s,,,,ro,,,o =
J ..-..t--.:I, - - - :
eoetLV WILL appear III L HE DAILY ana w WEEK
LY TRIBUNE
Seattle & Montana Railway Co netition-
err and annellant "a TnsaYl1 ScbaiiJo u
al. respondents.
This was a nroceedino under tba al ~
March 2fst, 1890. to appropriate a sfrin .of
Hand one hundred feet IN ypidth IN IL Z 5,,,
pose of a rfeht al. xyav for anneIIa,,t;s rail
road across lots one and three in section
three. township twentv-five north ran oa
three east. in King comfy and to a asnerta 5n
and deterInine the n1nensation tn III ,oaid
to the owners and ali others irtaresfed fo1,
Tie taking II ini7rv II said lana r. AZ ~.
pears that one Patrick OiMeara was tbe
owner of both Of said lots and that III
spondents were tenants of III three II9,day
II q lease for The term If Ave vasrs froIn
August 18th. 1889. of which tern5 ahort ono
wear had exnired at tbe tin1a IF the go,
| nencement of these nroceedinos Tba
state was also a nominal Marty m acco1lnf
Of its ownership If tbe tide lands sn,aIT
portion of which the netitionar clain7ad
would be occupied by. the right' If vav mn
was not represented at the TRIAL. Lof three
lae AZ tha sIo1e ~ PI1oa+ ea,I,a ~ ~ 4
used bv respondents as annearS from tie
record for the purposes Of pardenino and
of raising noulfrv and swine Rnt a eSsn9aII
portion Of the whole tract however Wae
actually devoted to these nnrnoses and
that consisted of a narrow strin heturaan
the water,s eGoa and a biob biT1f4 ~ t;i 81,
ing house, ana various other h1iidinos
used by the RESPONDENTS in the nrosecnti6en
u Of their business. Apnellant's Tioht If yuev
crossed this norton Of the premises ana
i il il claimed by the resnondents that' n III
cIudes within its limits ali tho bni1d
| ings excepting the DWELLING honse
i which was only nartiaIlv on
I the RIGHT Of Wav HE fancae
i and many frlljt trees and
that the apDropriatlon Of this land hv thn
railroad DESTROYED a LARGE quantity of
GROWING ta6lns and denri1yad tIan, ~
their Ieasehold estate. At the trial in the
superior coUrt. al before Indicated n wac
sought to assess fhe DAMAGES resnItino
from the taking Of the land to tie owner
of both lots as well as to the respondents.
4 Bit althouph H. is stated IL tha briaf IT.
appellant and is doubtless trne that the
Jury rendered verdict and assessed dam
ages to O'Meara. it is NOT shown nv the
record that anv answer was filed Nv lin, Z
or that he was represented by counsel and
it appears that the only real contest on The
/ trial was that wagad bv resnandents Tho
latter in their answer claimed DAMAGES in
the sum offiye thousand dollars. The iury
awarded them six hundred dollars, for
which Judgment was entered and from
which the petitioner apnealed No excent
tions are taken to the charge Of the cour-
| to the iurys and the onlv errors alIeoed re-
! late To The ruling of the court ii tie Tecep-
ton and rejection OF testimony. Most of
appellants objections are without any sub
stantiaI foundation, not being supported
by the record, but there is one, however.
that cannot be overlooked and which
must work a reversalsof the Judgment. 1t
IS this: The respondents were permitted
to introduce testimony as to the value of
/ the land taken, and of the BUILDINGS which
were upon it when they took possession rn
der their lease, and of the value Of fruit trees
growing thereon. So far as the respond
t ents were concerned. the question was not
one of the value of the premises, for that
would not necessarily determine the value
4 of the lease, but of the value of the use Of
the land for their unexpired term. Thev
had only a limited interest in the land. and
were entitled to conversation onIv for
damages to that interest. If they had
been the owners, the measure of their dam
ages would have been the difference Ia
| tween the market value Of the land before
| the taking of the right Of way and
/ any benefits accruing from the build
ing, of the railroad And the same pTin-
Glpie snoGlG pe AZ tappnea, @ SO daE as possible,
thew were entitled as ste teaants In II tbis case case
the respondents are entitled to be fully
PAID me difference II the market value Of
@ CG ~ USE op Ur VnF Pni e?ises @ aoE se TsaIGer en-
II ~ rar%ad apd sg H. sa9 eii4 "
c ;u otor the sie aiIei lys
smonnt Of diminntinn Se1 n 1ane moio af tbai
tat tgSSo noG@pse e - gliG @ 4 Aa it
U1esS ~ py olo 9l VII