Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-12-10
DISCUSSING VALUES
Testimony Given in the Street Ex-
tension Cases.
JURY LISTENS TO EVIDENCE
Mr.. Paul and Mr.. Brown Talk of
Value Of Lots.
W Fl EN- B E N E F I T E D

After many postponements, case 49,
Denison and Leighton subdivision of Mt
Pleasant, the test case in the matter of the
proposed extension of streets, was pro-
ceeded with before Judge Cox, and the jury
of seven appraisers in the District Court
this morning, witnesses testifying as to the
value of the eighty-three parcels in the
subdivision on part of the District. The
District was represented by MessEs> s. T.
Thomas A. B. Duvall and M. N. Richard
son. while among counsel for the various
owners were Messrs. Nathaniel Wilson. w.
L. Cole, VIM. Birney Chaplin Brown A. A.
Lipscomb, ]. H. Gordon, J. H. Lichliter,
C. H. Armes and Dence Mcpherson. AS
the first witness the District called Mr..
Joseph Paul
Mr.. Paul TestiRes.
Mr.. Paul said he had resided here since
1878, and has been engaged in the real
estate business since 1879, having been en-
gagged in both urban and suburban proper
ty He stated that he is well acquainted
with Denison and Leighton's subdivision
of Mt. Pleasant and had examined lot "a,
at the corner of Columbia road and 18th
street. The lot. he thought, Is worth 81
| a foot. The taking off of part of the lot
would depreciate the remainder at least
: D.
cents a foot. Lot 40 he would place at
the same value, the lots being too deep.
Lots 14S 1l9. $50, Isl he valued at 81
foot, but that price would not he thought,
be deprecated by the taking of part of
them. Lot Isl he valued at from 50 to
90 cents a foot and believes that the TAX
ing of part of it would benefit. Lot 80 is
is worth 90 cents a foot, and it would be
benefited by taking part Of it.
For lot %, he thought. 81 a foot was
about right, and it would not be damaged
by the taking of part of it. Lots 81. ID.
123, l24. 125, 1875 and 121 he valued at 81
a foot The taking of parts of lots 81 and
122 would. he believed. I've an advantage,
as 1t would cause them to face a wide
| street. He did not include the improve
men,s Lot 65 he placed at 90 cents. and
tsS. Co. 20 and II at 20 cents, and the OPEN
ing Of the street would double that value.
Mr.. Paul explained that in some instances
| the occupancy of lots by inferior frame
houses deprecated the value of the land,
in some cases 20 per cent.
Some lots on 18th street extended, Mr..
Paul thought, were not worth more than
10 or Is cents a foot, but the taking Of
parts Of them would increase that vaiua-
ton. Lots 70, 10. 50 and 81 he valued at
about 80 cents a foot. apd believed that the
| taking of parts CT them would also result
beneiicially to them. The abandonment of
old 18th street would benefit abutting lots,
which would front then on 18th street.
The abandonment of old 10th street would,
he believed, result diSaStrouSly to some
lots, while others might be benefited.
CrOss-Examined.
Upon cross-examinat:on, Mr. Paul stated
to Mr.. Chaplin Brown that he had never
bought or sold land in Denison q Leighton's
subdivision. He based his estimates as to
values on what he had been told and gen.
| eral observation. To Mr.. Wilson the w.t.
ness said he had no personal knowledge of
values in the subdivision nor as to rental
values of houses in the subdivision. Mr.. 7.
A. Harding had told him that he pad m
| 1893 about 81 a foot for real estate fronting
on Columbia road. Mr.. r. w. Walker told
him he had sold a lot at head of 10Th street
| in the subdivision for 10 cents Lots 'front.'
ing on Columbia road, independent of the
taking off of parts of :hem, Mr.. Paul said,
-he would place at about 81 a foot.
Speaking of lot ILL., on 18th street above
Kenesew avenue, Mr. Pail valued it at
about % cents a foot, explaining that if
the owner could not purchase land from
| the owner of the rear lot the value of the
lot in question would be deprecated about
% or 30 per cent and that rule would apply,
| he thought, in many OF the lots so stu
ated. To Mr.. A. A. LtspcomS Mr. Paul
| explained that in fixing the values of lands
ne placed them at what he considered are
| their market values. In some cases he
based his estimates on values ne expected
when the street extension scheme went
through.
And that will be-" exclaimed Mr.. Lips
| comb the next day after never
Mr.. Paul explained that he had exper,,
sales in the subdivision. and remarked that
| If he had learned of bona fde sales at prices
higher than he had mentioned his estimates
would of course, be somewhat modified.
MIR. Austin T.. Brown.
| AS their next witness counsel for the Dis
| trict called Mr.. Austin P. Brown, who said
he has resided here since 1863 and has
| been engaged in the real estate business
| since 1883, having been particularly en-
| gagged in Mt. Pleasant real estate Like Mr.
| Paul. he valued lot n at 81 a foot and be-
| lieved that the taking of part of it would be
| beneficial.
| Mr. Brown agreed with Mr.. Pauls esti-
| mates in most instances, explaining that
| in some cases owners losing parts of
| their lots would be benefited, beca use they
| would have less taxes to pay and would
enjoy a frontage on an improved or wider
street OF course, said Mr.. Brown, where
| lots were virtually cut Off from frontage
preciated in value. Lot To-, on Columbia
! road, ne valued at 90 cents foot, and the
| lot he said, would be benefited by the tax
| ing of part of it. He valued 123 at so
cents and 124 and 125 at s1.25; 126 at s1.;,0
| and 127 at IS cents. Lot 122, on Kenesaw
| avenue, he valued at from S1.2a to $50,
| and the effect of the proposed taking would
| depend upon whether or not 18th street be
| closed. Lot 123 he placed at 50 cents, and
| 1874 and 12;, 65 to 20 cents, and 126, CD to 30
| cents The proposed taking of parts them
| would, he believed. be beneficial to the
| remaining parts of them. Lots 112, 113
| and ia, 20 cents, and lis, 116 and III, 60
| by the taking of part of them. although
| 113 would be very little benefited, he
| thought.