Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-12-11
Testimony in the Street Extension
Condemnation Cases.
OPINIONS IN REGARD TO PRICES
What Was Developed in the
Hearing Today.
f o r B o T 81 s D E S

Upon the resumption Of the street extern
sion condemnation proceedings before Judge
Cox in the District Court this morning. in
case 49, Denison and Leighton's subdi-
VISION one of the forty-seven subdivisions
embraced within section 1 Of the Approved
plan Of street extension. Builder Lester A.
Barr. who testified yesterday afternoon on
behalf of the District, was recalled.
He stated that all deeds Of conveyance in
Columbia Heights prohibited the establish
| ment of liquor saloons there. and also pro-
hibited the establishment therein of manu-
featuring concerns. Columbia Heights SUBJ
division was. he thought, much more pref
| cradle as a resident section than that of
Denison and Leighton's. 80
Mr.. Lnmpton's Values.
| Real Estate Dealer James ]. hampton
was next called as witness on behalf of
the District. He stated that he has been
engaged in the real estate business here for
four years. and is well acquainted with the
subdivision In question. and also with Co
lumbia Heights and Washington Heights.
Recently, he said. he purchased lot at
Yale and 18th streets for 81. Is a foot, and
lot i'll Washington Heights for s1.2o. Re
ferring to lot A, Denison and Leightons
subdivision, he valued it at from 81 to 81. 10
| a foot. Lot Al he placed at 6O to Us cents,
and As and 40. 65 to 40 cents. Lot 81 he
| valued at the same price.
| Lots 49, 149, $50 and 151 he valued at
! from 81 to sl.15 a foot and 1872. corner
| lot, at $1.25. Lots 81 and 81 he placed at
GO cents The carrying through of street
benefited all lots on ii. he thought. Lots
| %, IS, 81, s. 50, 60, 81 and 60 he placed at
from 60 to 10 cents, and the same valuation
he placed on lots from 3 to II. Lot lis,
on old 10th street. he valued at 60 to 40
cents, but lot 119 he put at S1.23. Lot III
he put at 10 cents, and 10 at 81, it being
corner lot. Lots 122, 123. 124, 123 and l26
he placed at from GO to IS cents foot.
Lot 122, on Columbia road, he valued at 81
foot, but the lot would be injured by the
taking of part of it. He placed the same
value on lots 123, 124 and 123, but l26 he
placed at sl.25. Lot H., at the bead OF
10th street. he placed at from % to so
cents foot. so, too, would lots LIB, Ia and
l15.
Lot 125 corner of Kenesaw avenue. he put
at 70 to 50 cents a foot: lots l2o and l26
would not be injured by the taking of parts
of them. Lots 12G to 131 he placed at the
same price. Lots 132 and 133 he put at 80
! cents, and said the carrying through of 10th
street would benefit the lot, but lot 134. he
thought, would be worth somewhat more,
being a corner lot. Lot 1O1 he valued at
from 81 to $l.15. and lot 102 at from $1.15
| to s1.2O. Lots 103 1Oi and 1O5 he put at 50
cents.
Lots lbs. ls9 and 40 he put at 65 to 20
cents. and al at 90 cents foot. Lot 141.
| he believed. would be injured by the taking
of part of it. Lots KS and 50. he thought,
| would be worth not more than Is Ger
being down in hole. Lot y he pu
30 cents: 73. a. 10 and &c. 80 to 90 cel.
! -. 40 cents; 1S. 80 cents. and 20, so and 81.
S5 cents.
Mr.. hampton said he had three houses
on Kenesaw avenue. south side. which
would be taken. which he valued at 81, 500
each. The subdivision in question Is not
SO desirable resident section as that of
Columbia Heights he thought.
Some Explanations.
To Mr.. w. l.. Cole Mr.. hampton said ne
had neither sold nor rented property in
| Dcnison and Leighton's subdivision. OF
sales in it, he had no personal knowledge
Mr.. T. A. Harding had told him, about two
years ego. Of purchasing lots on Column
bia road at 81 foot. The witness said he
based his valuation on his general knowl-
edge of values in adjacent sections in the
| city and suburban districts Shallow lots
| said Mr.. hampton. are more valuable by Is
per cent than unusually deep lots, where
| all other things are equal. Mr.. hampton
explained that in making his valuations
he based them on existing conditions, not
! On. what may hereafter be done in the
widening Of streets. If he should be allow
ed to take into consideration the probable
| future improvement of the streets, he
! would. Of course. naturally increase his
| valuations. but he understood that he
| could not do thai.
The opening and extension of the streets
| proposed would materially benefit adjacent
laGds. he believed.
Judge Cox explained that witnesses must
base their opinions on present. existing
| c"nditions-stating only what in their opin-
| ion are the present market values of the
/! land. Judge Cox also stated that as he
understood the law land owners would be
highways abar doned by the District So
| there could be no bottlirg up of their
lands. Owners, however would not have
the right to erect buildings on such aban-
n cd Ia 10 IGSfri Hfr Ia
called upon to improve such abandoned
lands by constructing sewers or water
mains
Counsel for the District called Clerk
James A. Forsyth of the District survey
or's office, who identified The subdivision
on the records of the office. and they also
called Mr.. NJ. C. Hazen of the District
engineers office, who identified the official
map of the proposed extension of streets IL
the subdivision.
Original Subdivision.
Mr.. B. F. Leighton, member of the bar,
was next called as a witness on behalf of
the District. He stated that he has been
resident here for twenty-five years, and
admitted that he is one of those RESPONSE
BILE for the subdivision in question He said
he is we'll acquainted with the subdivision
and with the proposed extension of streets
through it,
While there will probably be individual
sion of TIE streets, yet he believed that
the proposed extension will be of great
general benefit to the community. The
community at large. however. will enjoy
no special benefit from such extension. AL
though people living in the immediate
vicinity would he thought. But it will be
difficult. indeed, he believed, to fix The
berefit in dollars and cents.
Other Testimony.
After the usual midday recess the District
called James Robinson, a builder who
stated that most of the frame houses in
the subdivision could be moved, the object
of counsel for the District being to show
that where frame houses stood in tie way
of the streets proposed to be extended they
could be moved back out of the way. The
cost of moving, explained the Witness
would vary in about every instance, be-
cause of the varying sizes of the different
houses and because of the varying grades
VIM. c. Morrison, builder, the next
witness, was asked as to the values Of
the respective houses standing on lands to
be taken, but it developed that he had not
had sufficient opportunity to examine the
nc uses so the hearing was adjourned until