The evening times., 1895-12-16
oNIt8s on THE s1lHD
Testimony Given By Them in the
Highway Act Case.
VALUE 0FaTHEIR PROPERTY
Additional instruct ions We're Asked
by the Respondents-rhe Court
Oyerruled the Motion with Ref
t'rence ITO C0mpensatio on-His Re
marks Coaotfniug the Jury's Task.

The te6Sonproceedinnsin District
court. Justice Cox presiding. opened this
morning. INC ana WIN tas,sxami9atioa OF pr"perty
vision who testified to the value of their
improvements.
John W. McMahsn was the first witness.
He is the owner OF b house onlot 1O5. which
be valued at $4,000.
Mr.. Mcmahon was succeeded BY Mr.. Al
bert F. Fox. In addition to bis stest imony
as to improvements Mr.. Fox was asked
what effect upoI,- his Judgment of valua-
tions the know1edxe or the offer Of lot 50
at 10 cents per FOOT would bave, and be re-
Piled that IL would in his opinion be a fair
I'VE "waieh Is ,l.ss1sisfe valuable portion of
asked Mr.. ThoniSsL- -
"I think the be4t side of 1t lies on X enesaw
avenue"
Columbia rOad?"
well. that portion Is pretty good"
Mr.. W. L. Cole here asked for the subniis-
sion OF the correspondence between the
reference to the Laying or sewer to con-
meet proIarty- with the Fifteenth street
sci conceded that there had been such cor
res pontiencc. and tnat he had hirnseif ad-
vised the Commissioners that such connec-
ton was inadvisable.
DENIED THE IMPROVEMENTS.
The point sought 10 be made was that on
account OF the projected street extensions
the government had denied the needed i'm
provenicnts. to the detriment OF property
and in depreca ton OF its value.
w. He. Thompson was exa mined in chief
by Attorney Lichlitrs as TO lot 53. ON the
corner or kcnesaw avenue and Fifteenth
street, but Mr. Thomas did not deem 1t
important to discuss lot SO. as it would not
be affected one way or the other.
NN.n TsUr Nl.nrU rDn nad IN. tbs.
value OF other property. and the damage
that would result in case a removal OF the
improvements becomes necessary-
Robert Is. Brown was called TO give the
value OF lots 90. 80 and SO. The last two.
he sud. were worth 81. the first-nanied 80
cents. per foot, each being what he regarded
! had hecn offered for 5 cents per foot would
have effect upoii his opinion
DEEDS. IN EVIDENCE.
Several deeds showing a separate own
ership in d humiA,r of lots were submitted
5y Mr.. s. K. Boud. Mr. W. L. Call and
others as yideure .thst division OF the
property worket greater disadvantage to
one-half than to the other on account Of
difference in depth, location and otherwise.
BeniaInin p Davis was the last witness
Addit ionai Instructions were asked by
the respondents. to the effect. IN Eart.
hat the jury after the award Is asccr-
;ain,-i cannot deterDaine benefits. nor in
uuir.. what property may lie benefited and
to what Extent by the projected improve
'neDts. Also that the Jury shall Dol assess
bcneffsS upon property not attached la the
subdivision. and where any paris OF a lot
is sought to be- con'lemnesi the Jury may
not assess possible benefits upon the re-
ma inticr ty reason OF the proposed I'M
provtments.
IL was aiso asked that In conformity with
prpvio,s proceedings. the COMPENSATION Tor
property condemned can not. without the
.p,t,.ni or the owner. be made partly IN
money and partly IN the benef,ts deterinined
as possible by the proposed extension OF
streets. and for instructions to avoid a
do Ible assessment. .--
Ths. court formally oyerruieti the motion.
but said that he was e9Enizant OF the
s5,s o5 pss paG, ,ssuT ss Of ie
vanced. He recognized the fact that II
was a difficult ,task for the iurymen 10
perform. but haf supposed they would have
TO tio the best they could with 1t.
DELIVERED. THE INSTRUCTIONS.
Inssru, tions asked for by Attorney ArIDes.
to the effect that the Jury shall consider the
Inconvenience ltor which property owners
hav. been subjected BIZ reason OF the delay
s'te,siinx the street extension pians. were were
granted by the court This Is In line with
a decision in The Rock Creek Park case.
Now, arc VT all through asked Mr.
Thomas.
The court then delivered such instruc-
tons as he regarded as proper.
Justice Cox remarked at the outset that
th, District does not propose TO acquire
title in fee simple, but only its use. and
should streets projected br ever abandoned
fh,. urupcrty will revert TO the owner.
He said the j1ry should consider the most
valuable uses to which th- property can be
pat. It's cash vaine. what prices have been
nd and MAKE due. allowance for differ-
en- &c in locatioit Also that the enhancing or
lesscniIix value OF renla inder OF a lot OF
whic,, part IL taken. Probable sales are not
to he considered of lots In rear of lots
having street frontage. but II Is proper to
consider what. IL anv. will be 1essened IN
value by the abandonment of streets. and
what enhan c ed by. the opening OF streets
The instructions were quite lengthy.
covering every phase ot the questions at
Issile.
The Jury in the condemnation proceed
incS will make another visit this after
nonn to the pennis0n and Leighton sablivi-
sion. bat viii report at court tomorrow
t,,or,lipc at 10 O'Clock room VIII then
h. assigned for its use and the work OF
dipcstins testimony will he ut once CON-
niepcci 1t is believed a conclusion viii
bs reached by Wednesday evening. The
next ease to be taken up will be that or
Ingk.sisle subdivision. due Wednesday
morning.
---- -
1aR