The Washington times., 1895-03-05
FIVE DECISIONS RENDERED
Court of Appeals Decides the North
Capitol Street Extension Case.
Ruling of the Lower Court Afirmed-R Rail-
reads Must Pay Mrs. Eickey-De-
faultsr Karrs Bondsmen.

The court Of appeals yesterday began
work for March and rendered five decis
ions. The most important of these was
that upon the condemnation ofproperty for
the extension O North Capitol street
Proceedings were begun under the act of
1890 and commissioners Were appointed to
condemn the lands necessary for the eX-
tension of the street. These commission
ers Were directed to consider the effect of
the improyementupon the property involved
and in case of benefits to deduct the esti-
mated Increase invaiue froma Naturalization
Of the property and TO add any damage to
the remainder OF any tract to the price of the
part taken.
EXCEPTION WAS NOTED.
The instructions by the court in regard to
benefits were not quite satisfactory 10 the
government and an exception was noted
The commissioners after careful investi-
cation reported upon the part of Prospect
Hill Ccmetary that was needed, q valuation
of $45 ,T2t aud damages to the remainder
of the cemetery assessed at 50 ,962, While
they placed at $21 ,07S the value OF the
ground needed to- be taken from the tract
belonging TO Mrs. Annie Il. Barbour. They
assessed special benefits to the Barbour
tract at SIS $50.
They recommend the payment to Mrs Bar
bour OF 81 .54S. When the approval of the
supreme court of the District was sought,
however, the proposed assessment of bene-
fits 10 the Barbour property was set aside.
The attorney for the commissioners then
took an appeal upon the ground that proper
instructions had not been given upon the
point of special benefits, and that the valu-
alton made by the appraisement commits
sioners was excessive.
INSTRUCTIONS WERE CORRECT.
The court of appeals in rendering the de
cision, which is written by JuG1e Morris,
says that the instructions in regard to spe-
cial benefits were correct, and that the
disallowance of the S1S,530 of benefit to
the Barbour property was proper.
1t Will be enough the opinion states. to
collect for special benefits when the improve
1 ment has actually been made. 1t is mani
| festly unfair to collect by deduction from
| the value of the land actually taken the
amount estimated for supposed advantages
to the remainder of the tract, when these
benefits VIII only accrue if ever, after the
| street is actually extended.
On the other hand, tie damage to the
| remainder of the cemetery, by taking part
! for the street. Will be contemporary witt
the transfer to the government, and the
| So ,962 damages to the cemetery, by reason
of its decreased desirability as a burying
| ground should be paid at once.
| The question whether the land VIII eVel
be taken for d street need not enter into g
| consideration of the matter. The govern
ment is certainly at liberty to take the
| ground or leave it.
The condemnation proceedings impose
no obligations upon the government tC
complete the trade The act OF Congress ot
1894 it is stated, cannot nullify the pro
| ceedings in court Unless all condemnation
by the courts of lands for public use are 6
mere farce, the government is just as much
bound by the findings under condemnation
as is the individual.
If the government elects to take the
ground. it must pay the full price to Mrs
Barbour and other claimants to the same
| tract The decision CT the lower court il
affirmed
AGAINST THE RAILROADS.
In the case of the Washington and George
town and the Baltimore and Potomac rail
roads against Mrs Margaret l.. Hickey th'
court decided that there was no contrib
utory negligence, that the damage assessed
by the jury, $12 600, was not excessive, ant
the decision below was affirmed. The
opinion was by Chief Justice Alvey.
In George Gibson and the American
Surety Company of New YORK agalns
George A. Sheahan and Edwin Mcleod th
court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Alvey
affirmed the court below. Mr.. Gibson ant
the two defendants were sureties on TIL
bond of Anton Karl, disbursing agent o
the Interior Department in 1883.
| Karl paid the American Surety Compan,
$4,000 in consideration of their agreemen
to secure Mr Gibson against loss upon Karl
bond Karl defaulted and the Surety Com
pany had to pay the government $4,o33.
1t sought to collect two-thirds of thi
amount from Messrs. Sheahan and Nc
Leod, the other bondsmen. The court hold
that they were entitled under the law to tn
indemnity the company agreed to give Glib
son.
In w. F. Hoffman against William G
Douglass for possession of the lot occupies
by Richard Rothwel as stone yard tn
court, spea king by Judge Morris, held tha
the rulings of the court below were correc
and affirmed the decision giving the prop
erty to Douglass.
l