The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-05-17
MISSION STREET.
The Status of the Condemnation
Suit.
The City and County Attorney Makes Com
plete Statement Of the Matter-But
One More Court

In answer to a request from the Mayor as
to the status of the case involving the
widening of Mission street, City and County
Attorney burst ION yesterday sent the follow
ing communication:
Hon. George II. Sdnderson. Mayor Of the City
and County Of san krdHeiSco-DEAR SIR: Inc
status and facts Of the MisSlon-stre c0ndemna-
tion subtitle City and County of San Francisco
VS.. Annie Herman ct al.-aTe as follows:
Judgment Of condemnation was rendered me
I'm day OF November, 1891, CONCERNING me
realty concerned for public use as d street. By
said judgment the defendants were awarded
5000 as damages, and the city paid into eouIt
for the defendants the amount awarded An
appeal was taken from said Judgment and the
order denying motion for a new trial. ana Salu
appeal is now pending
On The 18Th day CT February, 1892. upon the
application of the plaintiff under the provisions
OF the general street law, the court made an
order directing, author lzing and empowering
the City and County OF San Francisco 10 go
into possession or said premises and 10 pro-
ceed with the CONTEMPLATED improvements. NO
notice of Intention TO apply for this order
was given by pialntin, inasmuch as none was
required by the provisions OF the street law.
The defendants gave notice OF motion 10 dls-
solVe sald order. and the mater was heara i On
the Attn day of March, 1892, and was granted,
The court ruling that the proceedings should DC
taken under the code and not undrr the statute.
Plaintiff then proceeded under The code, which
requires a 10 days notice. When the motion
came on for hearing, the court ordered II SUD
mited on briefs. Some 20 days were consumed
in presenting briefs. In May, 1892. The court
came TO The conclusion:
Firsr-That as a matter of safety. under the
uncertain provisions OF the code. an ADDITIONAL
sun: OF $3.50 should be deposited In court To
cover any loss or damage which the defendants
might sustain should the realty involved be not
ultimately taken for The public use.
SecOnd-That for the same reasons a notice OF
ten days should be given after the deposit OF
said $3.50 In court. Tie court thereupOn made
and signed an order directing he plaintiff 10 pay
into court for the purpose above specified the
sum OF $3.50, and declaring that upon said pay
ment being made the city and county should De
entitled TO possession. ne above being the
views OF the court, proceeded accordingly.
The $500 was paid into court In accordance
with the order. Notice was served upon The de-
PENDANTS OF motion for the order for possession
TO be made Oh the 23d day of May, A. ID. 1892
On that day said motion Will be made and UNI
quesIionably granted. Thereupon the order
authorizing The city to enter into possession v III
be nnquestionabiy signed.
shall state, however, that the defendants,
through their counsel, have announced that they
will JherenpOn Immediately apply 10 the SUI
preme Court for a writ OF review to set aside
said order They, OF course, have strict legal
right 10 make such application. Should such
application be made, | shall do my utmost 10
secure It's early disposition.
wish 10 state that special counsel appointed
under the administration OF the former City and
County Attorney by the late Board OF super
VIsOTs have had charge until February OF this
year OF this ease, The case never having been In
this office prior To that time, and this Office haV
ing no part In its conduct or familiarity with its
condition or management.
About that time such counsel refused TO per-
form any further service IN the matter, on the
grounds That they had carried the case as far as
originally agreed for lie fee paid By tile Board
OF Supervisors. Said counsel brought the papers
10 lie Office, and was compelled to take charge
or allow the rights Of the city and county 10
lapse. This office was compelled 10 attend to the
matter OF the settlement OF the statement OF The
case motion tor new trial, notwithstanding
th the matter was long and Intricate aud not
withstanding that the Office was entirely UNI
familiar with the case.
No application for a writ OF possession was
made until the said ease, as j stated above. was
thrown abruptly Into my hands. Since the time
that It was thus brought to my attention and into
my hands all possible expedition consistent with
the requirement OF the law and with due safety
has been observed. Respectfully yours,
JOHN II. BURST,
City and County Attorney.
From the above statement it will be seen