The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-12-23

One ana Does Not Seem to
Affect the Situation In Roanoke.
Tho Richmond Times of yesterday
published the following article in regard
to the recent decision Of the Supreme
Court on assessing abutting prope rty
owners for street improvements:
"The opinion handed down by the
court of appeals in the case of the city
of Norfolk and others az ainst Cham bcr-
laine, is still creating great interest
and causes ondloss trouble to the finance
committee of the city council 1t prac-
tically declares that all street improve.
ments have to be paid out OF the
revenues of the respective cities, while
heretofore it has been customary to
charge, for instance, paving OF sidewalks
and opening and paving of alleys to the
abuttipg property owners.
apparently the case affects only di-
rcctly the city OF Norfolk, but inasmucb
as the provisions of its charter are more
or less identical with those of the char
tors CT tho other cities in this State, it
follows that tho decision is of vast i'm.
portance TO all cities and municipal
corporations.
The opinion of the court is worry
o"CCPlHB OHC, duQ GuOTlS nave OGGn
made to modify it. the city attorney of
Norfolk having requested Mr.. c.. v.
Meredith to apply on his behalf for a
rehearing, and January Is has boon set
down by the court as the date when tho
matter will be taken up. The opinion,
which covers ninety pages legal cap,
was handed down at Wytheville, June
80, 1892, Judge Richardson writing the
same
The opinion was givon On an ppeal
from decree Of tho circuit court OF tho
city of Norfolk, rendered on May %,
1889, in the chancery suit then pending,
plaintiff and tho city Of Norfolk and
l.. III. Shields. the city collector we're
defendants.
Tho important facts in the case arc
the following:
I'm the latter part of tho yo,r 1884
the city authorities Of Norfolk decided
without the assent from tho majority of
land owners along the line to open and
extend Plume street from Cranky to
Bank street, sixty feet wide, which in
volved the widening Of the same ten
feet from G'anby to Concord street.
Failing to purchase or obtain bv
agreement from the owners along tho
line Of the street tho land necessary for
widening and extending the same, COM
missioners were appointed by the cor
poration court in due season to condemn
the land in accordance with tho pro.
visions of law. w. w. Chamberlain
was ono OF the land owners in question,
owning vacant lot corner OF CRANKY
and u ume streets, OF which q strip ten
feet wide on Cranky street and running
back thirty-nine feet vas to be taken.
The com missioners gave as their
oplnio n that for this portion of the lot
and for he damage to the residue there
OF beyond the peculiar benefits to be de-
rived from the work to be constructed,
Mr.. Chamberlain was entitled to 81, 200
as just compensation.
This report was confirmed by the
court. The money awarded Chamber
laine was paid to Cham berlaine, where
upon the city acquired title to that por-
ton OF the lot. Subsequently a COM
mittee of the city council assessed the
cost of the proposed improvements to
the AUDITING property owners, and Mr..
Cnam berlaine was assessed $1,000, or
$500 more than he had received for tho
portion of the 10; taken by the city.
In this order of assessing the better.
ments the city authorities for the first
limo declared that tho whole expense
should be assessed against the land
owners along the line. The assessment
was made according to no rule of uni
formity, but after visiting the premises
the committee assessed what they
thought would he the benefit tt accruing
to the several pieces of property.
when the city attempted to collect
tho amount assessed against Chamber
laine no obtained an injunction. sub.
sequently made permanent, and the city
Of Norfolk was ordered To rafund $500
and interest, which bad been paid by
him under protest. From this decree
the city Of Norfolk obtained an appeal
and supersedeas.
"The question involved in the case
was whether the city had the right,
after Carrying out the condemnation
proceedings, to assess against the
| owners for betterments to the residue of
their property an amount greatly in ex.
cess of the amounts Paid to them as
compensation for the land takon. After
a careful consideration of the subject
the court is OF the opinion that the city
had no authority to impose any such
burden"
CHOICE candies at Wertz's for SC. per
pound On 30 and "a Decembe only.
Postponed Until Next Month.
The quarterly meeting of the board Of
trade has been postponed until after