The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-24
ok DAMAGE SUITS.
1rtsest for Injuries for De-
$ fective Sidewalk.
.ssrsEeT SUITS DISMISSED.
asnys VIII Appeal ON Change Of
u~Pe Grade Tax Suits-Aa
nI.ustehed Coupls.

- ;xy vas we'll represented IN the
- Hsterday. Five cases in which the
-~.Ssntsrested came I'D for hearing,
~ djspoeed of, two were dropped
- - trial calendar and one is still on
vmfs Leisinser's suit against the city
= -. SO. 600 for injuries received on
* defect in the sidewalk be-
- Hss and Weller streets on Com
-: vss transferred from Judge Os-
- fsurt TO Judge Langley. A jury
-. Ind and after the evidence Of the
~ ~ hsd been put in the case was
I-l~isia 70 the court without argument.
- that Leisinger. while walking
- ;nmerciA street ons December IS
q ~ dock 1t night, stumbled over .
- te.hs sidewalk and fell, breaking
- els two pisces. In the course Of his
~irSn z edge Langley said that there was
~&n - TO the liability Of the city
- - circumstances, and that the
- IEetion to be determined was the
~uurksf damages. A judgment for $S25
iWAvs rendered.
a JuaFs Osborn's court the morning
= isken mp in citing further authorities
- a. city's motion to non-suit Mrs.
- rs Scurry in her suit to recover
$50 her property by the change of
- 4 Third street. In his decision
- born said that he was opposed to
1919 emotions for non-suits wherever
e lion could possibly be left to the
~ ~ in this case he could not zee his
- ssx 10 avoid granting the non-suit
answS for. Two other suits. ]. b. Met
- wSths City and J. G. Scurry ". the
a.. vtss stricken from the trial calendar
- 10 decision was rendered in the
hppe4e, - they are brought by adioin-
r. pe&rietors. involve the same points
~ pekin case and must stand or fall
~ Il. fAs Mrs. Scurry's case is likely to
\ nprS;sd, il was considered better to
~ & s, test case, and not incur any
nekw Expense until it had been passed
IN by:.he supreme court
An irs resting question was raised in q
|eis hNssght by James Dougsn against the
~ 70 fseover 81. 100 A. damages for the
meprlation Of strip of land 100 feet
~ io<she construction of Water street.
Al the testimony for the plaintiff was put
| ! h ~ city. The ground for demanding
sossS% was that the plaintiff claimed
euunTy 70 the land under q judgment
= fsex,surs in suit in which the city
- swssr been made a party. For the
IlantE1 Il vas contended that his title
Siu1s $aek 10 the judgment. and that
- ~ Ssen rendered against the owner
= - epsrty before the city ecquired
/ ~ iatssst in II.
nsiNts Of the case are that on July 81,
~ Romas Johnson mortgaged the
plDert1 70 James Dougan to secure loan
dNSN This mortgage covered lots IA
oiR 81 block p. of the Northern addi-
- 10 teattle. across which the strip of
~ ~ taken. On August 7, 1880, the
nnpke tas foreclosed by Dougan and
tsWsxsty sold by the sheriff in April,
- 3sagaa bid il in for the amount of
866E. and in April, 1890, the year for
[uaRlHM having expired. Dougan re-
Nwd f;sed from the sheriff. On Sep
tahwlA ls90. the city took possession
= - koperty under proceedings author
~ By the Old charter. Under this pro-
Uour :. ordinance was passed condemn
- "Trip for the construction of Water
nm. kong which the electric railway to
laaans nOw runs. There was no trial Of
qussion. nor any decree of appropria-
IN copy Of the ordinance was simply
rsaeFSn newspaper for stated period.
- as:nDouncement directing the owner
WY before the council and have his
oaaga assessed by three appraisers. In
- ess Griffith Davies. Thomas w.
n~etSaad J. ID. Lowman were appointed
ensSn, and they directed that -. 100
pssceo Johnson. who was at that time
- cstter. although the land was mort
3 Dougan. All these proceedings,
Nolsims, were void a. against him.
wave 'ss city moved for q non.suit upon
- frEudo above menfioned