The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-12-27
EXCEPTIONS TO REPORT
Filed by City Solicitor in Natter ct
New Street Damage Claims.
ACTION OF COMMON COUNCIL
Nullificd by the Step Taken Yesterday BY
Mr.. Torrcy-Mattcr Will Now
Come Up in Court for
q Hearing.

of damages in the matter of the grad
ing of New street was practically null
litied yesterday by u step taken by City
Solicitor Torrey.
He filed exceptions in court to the
report of the viewers and the matter
will now come up i'm court for consider
alton. Attention to the report of the
viewers was first strongly attracted
by the desire shown by members of the
common council to kill the resolution
directing that an appeal be taken. One
of the property owners to whom large
amount of damages was awarded was
Common Councilman Gilroy of the Sew
enth ward
When City Solicitor Torrey learned of
the action of the common council he
at once prepared exceptions to the re-
port and they We're filed yesterday. the
last day allowed by law for fling ap-
peals.
Speaking of the matter yesterday Mr..
Torrey said:
while it is necessary that l should
receive the authorization of councils
before moving to take an appeal, / do
not have to consult them if | deem 1t
proper to file bill of exceptions. The
damages are | think excessive and the
report is also incorrect"
A feature of the affair called to the
attention of The Tribune by Select
Councilman Chittenden Is that while
damages amounting to $2,S432O were
awarded by the viewers the cost of the
grading was only $172. The exceptions
filed by Mr. Torrey are as follows:
Exceptions in Detail.
The city of Scranton. by James II. Tor.
rey, city solicitor, eXcepts to the report Of
viewers filed In the foregoing case. Novem.
ber 26 1894, for the following reasons:
First-lt Is impossible to tell from the
report of viewers what amount of damages
is allowed to Catherine DeLacy, NJ. F.. Gil
roy and II. b. Lackey, there being sched.
ules attached to the report from which II
cannot be clearly known which contains
the viewers actual estimate of the dam.
ages.
Second-The viewers report states tina,
they returned the damages estimated ant
returned by them with their report marked
"Schednle A." but no such return &C
marked is attached to the report; there
fore, the report Is uncertain and indefinite
Third-Damages are awarded by the
viewers to NJ. +. Gilroy upon the "easterly
half of lot No. in block 30'' with referenc;
TO plan attached TO the report. Upon sait
plan there Is no lot designated as lot No
5 in block 80; therefore, 1t is uncertain from
the viewers report to what lot the dam
ages referred to are awarded.
Fourth-Whether the actual amount OF
the viewers award to Catherine DeLac!
upon lot No. | in block Isis $2l0 as 1t ap
pears in one part of the report, or $780, a.
Ii appears In another part of the report
the said award was grossly excessive ant
beyond the actual damages sustained by
said lot from the grading Of the street
Fifth--Whether the damages awarded t(
NJ. f. Gilroy, upon the easterly part of lc
No. In block 30 H. s3S7.j0. as II appear!
from one part of the report, or si25.2S. n!
1t appears by another part Of the report
"a Il S..tx
the actual damages sustained by said 10
from the grading of the street.
SiXth-The damages awarded to Thoma!
i. Jones upon lots 3 a and 3 b in block Is
to wit, S5O625. are grossly excessive and be
yond the actual damages sustained by sal,
lots from the grading of the street.
Seventh-The damages awarded to W. L
Gilroy upon the westerly half of lot No.
in block II, TO wit, S437.5O, are grossly ex
cessive and beyond the actual damages sus
street.
As to the Lackey Property.
Eighth-Whether the damages awarded
| to H. B. Lackey upon lot No. in blocl
Is are $37l.25 as 1t appears In one part y
| the viewers report, or S1OOVO as Ii appear
in another part of the viewers report, TN
damages are grossly excessive and beyon'
the actual damages sustained by said 10
from the grading of the street.
Ninth-The damages awarded to Susal
Dale upon lot No. Al In block IA, to wit
1890. 20. are grossly excessive and beyon'
the actual damages sustained by the 10
! from the grading of the street
Tenth-The viewers did not meet withil
| thirty days Of the time of their appoint
ment, and the attempted change of tn
| time for their meeting was wholly void
being made after the date fixed for thel
original meeting by reason whereof 1t 1
claimed by the city of Scranton that tn
entire proceedings were null and void.
Eleventh-No reason Is given Tor the N
crease in the awards of damages to NJ. +
| Gilroy, Catherine DeLacy and II. u
I.ackey: nor does 1t appear that such in
crease was based upon any testimony, o
made for anv sufficient reason.
| Twelfth-The premises for which tn
damages are awarded are not described b.
metes and bounds: nor are they otherwis
! so described as to sufficiently inform tn
! court or the parties to what premises tn
damages are awarded.
Errors That Are Specified.
Thirteenth--The viewers err in their find
ing that there were no benefits 10 any o
| the lots fronting on New street; and IN
| city of Scranton claims that all or the lot
| fronting upon New street between Wash
| ington avenue and Capouse avenues wer
specially and materially benefited by tn
| grading of New street: and that II an
| damages are TO be allowed such damage
should be assessed in whole or in part up
| on the properties so benefited; and in max
| ing this exception, the city of ScrantO
specifies the following lots as shown upo
the plan attached to the viewers report. I
wit: lots upon the north side of New stree
| between Washington avenue and the Pin
Brook sewer as follows: Lot No. 4, abou
| 40 feet front by 100 in depth; No >. 40 fee
by 100 feet: No. 6. IS feet by 100 feet. all l
block IS: lots upon the north side of Ne,
street, ebtween the Pine Brook sewer an
| the Delaware and Hudson Canal Compan
railroad as follows: Lot No. 20. block j
125 feet front by aobut ,OS feet: lot No
la in block I3. AZ feet by 100 feet: the TO
lowing lots between the Delaware an
Hudson railroad and Lords alley. to Wi
Lot No. 90. block ~. 60 feet front by ],
feet. part lot No. 2b 60 feet bv 100 feet !
block 10; the northerlv part of lot No. q
block 10. 40 feet by 100 feet: lot No. q
block 49, 140 feet by 100 feet; lot NO: %.
block 10. 60 feet by 100 feet: and alsO lC
No 1. In block 10. between lords alley, an
Canouse avenue. 17S feet In front and abo,
60 feet deep: also the following lots on tn
southerly side of New street. lying bt
tween Capouse avenue and Lords alley, I
wit: Lots Sa and Sb in block IS, being tt
street and co feet in depth: also the follow
ing lots on the southerly side of Ne
street, between Lords alley and the Del.
ware and Hudson Canal Company railroa'
as follows: Lots Nos. 3. TO- II, u. l3, ]
Is. and l6, in block IS. being each 40 fet
in front on New street and about 100 fet
deep: also the following lots on the souti
erly side of New street, between the Del:
ware and Hudson Canal Company railroa
and the Pine Brook sewer. as follow!
Lots No. 3. in block "A. irregular In shap
being 40 feet in front and about 100 fe,
deep: lot No. 4, block IA. being so feet
front and about 100 feet In depth: also II
following lots upon the southerly side
New street. between Pine Brook sew;
and WASHINGTON avenue. to wit Nos. g.
and 3. in block II, being each so feet
front on New street and about 100 fe'
deep. and lot No. 10. in block II. being
feet in front and about 1C0 feet deep.
And exceptant respectfully prays II
court to correct the report Of the viewer