The evening times., 1895-12-12
ITS EFFECT ON PROPERTY
Agitation on the Street Extension
! Matter in a New Light.
VALUES WERE DEMORALIZED
Testimony of This Sort Was Given by
u Witness at the Hearing Today.
Questions Admitted by the Court
TO Which Counsel Took Exceptions.
Progress of the Case.

The seven jurymen impaneled to CON
slider the issues Involved in the condema'
tion proceedings under the highway act,
now in hearing in District court before
Justice Cox, were promptly on hand this
morning, but there was slight delay in
the opening TO enable counsel for respond
ebts to perfect arrangements.
The first witness called was E. B. Towns
end, area est ate broker, who was questioned
by Attorney Nathaniel Wilson. The course
of the opening examination was in respect
TO the chara cter of the lots in the DeDnison
apd Leighton subdivision, and as TO the
yra,lipgs Mr.. Townsend said that from
o. TO 81 per cent of the lots were on grade;
that not more than four or five lots Will
have to be either cut or filled, a few being
ON Sixteenth and Kenesaw avenue, and also
on Fifteenth street and Columbia road.
MIR. Wilson braucheU off on another theme,
his questions being excepted to, but ad-
mitted by the court. He asked Mr. TOWN.
send il he remembered when the agitation
OF the subject of street extensions was first
begun, and whether or not such agitation
had the effect of reducing values OF prop
erty lying on the line or streets projected.
The court admitted the answers upon the
grounds that the line OF questions tended to
show the cause of the present low values,
II existing.
MOST DEMoRALIZING.
Mr. Townsend gave as his opinion that
the agitation was most demoraliZing. The
beginning was In 1887, and since then the
property was not held a just figures.
MIR. Wilson then asked IL there bad not
been discrimination against that section
in respect 10 Improvements, in anticlpa-
ton uf the projected extensions.
Il object, your honor" said Mr.. Thomas.
THE answer may be heard-you can note
an exception responded the court.
Mr.. Townsend said there had been such
discrimination. The people, in consequence,
had felt that they had been very much
neglected as to streets and sewerage,
When il came 10 values, Mr.. TownseDd's
opinion was greatly at variance with the
judgment of preceding witnesses. As ex-
amples. it may be stated that where the gov
ernmc mt witness rated lots at from go cents
and lower to 81 per foot, he was seldom be-
low 81. his estimates being, in part, as fol-
lows: Lot "A. value 81 so: lp,s l % and %,
valued al 81 10 81. ID: lots 124 TO 126. in
elusive. 81 80; lot 127, AT S1.10 to S1.15:
lot &c. at 81, and lots 81 to So, inclusive, 80
cents per foot: lots I4s and 40, placed at
81 30; lot l 81. at 81 .55.
a corner lot in Ibis vicinity. he said needs
cutting down. and he valued it at S1-25.
His prices generally ranged from 50 cents
to 81 so. seldom below the-figure first
named. and as seldom above S1-5O The
figures given were all a : To the present val
ues, not prospective.
The examiuat ton OF Mr.. Townsend occu.
pied the entire forenoon, and at 1870 the
court took recess.
There will be about half dozen witnesses
IN all examined for respondents on the
general features, and then the individual
property owners will be called To testify
as TO the value of their respective improve
ments. The hearing will probably consume
O week.