The evening times., 1895-11-21

| Ill.
More than one Hundred of the individual
property owners resulting within the boun'
daries or the first section of street exten-
sioBs, as laid out by the District Commits
sioners under the highway act, were rep
resented before Chief Justice Bingham in
equity court No today upon an appeal
for greater eape1itioD in The matter.
There were pot as many attorneys rs eli
ents, but the great number who followed
Mr.. Chaplin Brown;in the presentation of
the cases suggested the propriety Of call
ing the roll of the bar, lest some should
escape. -
There are forty-seven subdivisions in the
first section, irregular sections that do not
conform to the plan of streets as laid out
in the city, and the claim is that after
having proceeded so far under the act as to
have the plan recorded, the Commissioners
are seeking to delay the matter in order
| to correct by remedial legislation some
known defects in the law.
BASIS OF THE ATTACKS.
Some Of the attorneys attacked the con-
stitutionaiity of the act; others ndverted
to such defects, sbgt DECLINED to press. and
the general conclusion seemed to he that
as Justice McComas, In proceedings before
him, had passed upon the Constitutional
points, affirming the validity Of :hc act.
there would be no serious objection upon
that score, but the demand OF al !he at
torneys representing the protesting client
age was for Immediate action in The mat
ter OF authorizing; the niarsh5ls jury
as provided for, and the hastenng or pro-
ceedings, in order that the coming congress
may nave The opportunity To provide the
money for the damages awarded.
Mr.. Chaplin Brown, who represents about
ffty petitioners la Ingieside subdivision,
mace brief statement OF the ease far
as IT has progressed, citing particularly
that these cases shall take precedence in
court over all other cases. and made a
demand in behalf of the owners for inIIne-
ulate action. lie nvted the contention of
the unconsJitutioiaiity OF the law, in order
TO preserve any rights that may be involved
therciader, and stated his grounds vf
objection.
Mr.. W. l.. Cole, who represents twenty
TWO clients In Dennison & Leighton's sub
division, presented Il sample petition, which
he SAID he meant as much as an argument
as a petition, and represented the issues
he would raise. He did not desire 10 at
tack the law upon constitutional grounds.
although the eleventh section of the act
he believed to be repugnan to that instru-
Mary X. Langtree, owner of lot 5S, in
the Subdivision. located in the line of Six
tcenih street extension. Mrs. Largtree
states that her property VIII be entirely alb
sorbed by the extension, and she is how
neither able to sell the property She owns
nor purchase elsewhere, the proceeds of
sale being necessary to the acquisition OF
another home. --f.9
The Commissioners she alleges, have
by reason of the unsettled condition Of
the street extension plans, declined to
shpply the sewerage facilities neces-
sary 10 health. and her present residence
Is therefore rendered undesi rabl., and
she states as her ECiicf that the Commits
sfoners are purposcIy delaying the Con-
domination proceedings in order 10 procure
legislation ame.,Gatpry ef tlie high way act.i
OTHERS IN THE SAME FIX. -a 8
All those ref3fesentcd by Nj. Cole, lie
stated, are similarly situated.
II do not know what he Commissioners
May have In view "sitid Mr.. Cole 1t may
he they viii in their wisdom ask :or an
amendment to the Constitution. in ,rCier
tha; they may BE- eDab.ed to more Success
fully absorb to public use the property of
The citizens" He asked for Immediate ac-
tiun. 81. n -..r
clients, and under section / 8 nf the act
urged that proceedings may be speerled.
Mr.. j. H. Lichliter represented property
owners TN Sixteenth street; Gordon & Cor
don represented a number; Mr.. Jnhn RiGout
also number. the latter stating that he
would undertake Ia show that section 1.
of the act is repugnant to the Cpnsti-
tuition: Mr.. ID. ". Baker had clients in s.
p. Bakers Subdivision and Whitney Close:
Mr. u. f. Leightonl said he had no desire
to add to this chorus" but he added a
word for several interests in his charge, and
objected to the present clouding of title.
r.
counsel in nearly all of the Subdivisions and
would attack the validity of the law.
The Commissioners. he said, had violated
the provisions In ignoring and interfering
with valid and legal subdivisions, and
there were others also whose interests were
in the keeping of counsel present.
CHIEF JUSTICES SUGGESTION.
The chief justice suggested, in a brief |
resume of the case as presented, that these |
proceedings might more properly come be- |
fore the Justice who had sat when the |
initial proceedings were had, but thought |
he might go SO far as to authorize the |
marshafs Jury, and permit the after.pro- |
ceedings to be arranged for when necessary. |
The Commissioners were represented by |
Messrs. Thomas, euvall and Wcrthington, !
aud each had something TO say. The con- |
tention of counsel was that the board can |
not know certainly at this stage whether |
or not all the petitioners are in, and that |
to proceed now TO determination is i'm
possible.
Mr.. Brown finally stated that he would !
be willing upon the assurance of the other
side of an intention to hurry the case, to
have additional notices served and would, |
II necessary, consent to the delay of thirty
days, and 1t was ultimately agreed that the
case should 60 over until Saturday, to
enable counsel to agree upon the form of
notice to issue.
TOmOrrow's st. Asaph Entries.