The evening times., 1895-12-21
IN THE JuRI'S hands
Second Street Extension Pro-
ceedingsNeaiIy Closed.
BENEFITED BEAR TIE COST
Judge Cox Charged the Jury That
Ont-Half the Entire Benefits Should
Bt. Assessed to the Property Hold
ers-H the Jury Does Not Agree 1t
May he Discharged.

The Ingleside subdivision in the street
extension proceedings is now in the hands
or the jury, Justice Cox having delivered
! his Instructions this morning.
The jury was charged substantially as
in the case OF the Denison & Leighton sub
division, with a modification with refer
! ence TO the assessments of benefits, and
the modification was also made to ap-
ply TO the first case, the court SO advising
the jury, both cases being before the same
body.
The change in the instructions was that
instead OF assessing benefits generally
upon all property that may be enhanced by
the street extensions, the jury shall conrtne
its charges to the property in the immediate
subdivision then being considered.
The usual motions sfortnstructions by coun-
seifor the property owners. as preservation
or rights, and also the motion To discharge
! the jury from further consideration Of the
question were made and Overruled, and ex =
ceptions noted.
MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
1t has become part OF the discussion of
the issues in court and out by attorneys
and others that the whole fabric OF street
extensions under the highway act, and as
involved in the present proceedings, will
eventually be declared to be unconsttu-
Iionai,. Justice Cox has several times
from the bench adverted to this phase of
the question, reserviDg his opinion, how
ever, until the matter shall be properly
presented.
A leading attorney said this morning
thathe had no doubt OF the ultimate result,
and the motion for discharge of the jury.
as wei! as the petition by respondents for
instructions, indicate clearly the estimate
Ia
neys.
One defect pointed out by tie attorney
quoted was the omission by Congress
to make any provision for payment of dam
ages incurred by the property owners The
present Congress, tie said. may OF may not
make the provision required in the time
PspecifIed, and in that case the proceedings
fail verything will have to go back to
the beginning.
CHARGEABLE TO OWNERS.
Another feature of the case pointed out
is the provision made as to the assessments,
one-half the entire benefits being chargea-
bic to the property owners without clearly
defining whether ii shall include property
at remote distances on streets already
made, or whether the provision shall ap-
ply alone to the subdivisions through which
the extended streets shall pass.
Justice Cox Informed the jury today
that one-half OF the entire benefits even
though it shall aggregated million OF dollars,
snail be charged to tue property. The law,
he said, is peremptory upon this point.
You are to degernline,' he said, by some
general rule. what the assessments shall be.
1T may work a hardship" he added, but
under the law it cannot be avoided. The cost
is not upon all. but upon such property only
as shall be declared to be benefited, and in
the findings you are to be confined to what
you find existing as to the subdivision upon
which you are engaged.
"A majority verdict may be returned
but should it transpire that vou are un-
able to render a decision in which four
members are agreed, the jury may be dis
charged"
The case vas formally submitted, and
it was understood that in case additional
instructions are required, court aud coun-
sci are to be notified.