Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-01-15
FOR A NEW TRIAL
Owners Do Not Like the Street Extension
Awards
Nathan Filed Today In Case of Deni-
son and LeiEhtOn's SubdlVl-
ston-Questions Raised.

n, hoha1f of several of the land own
o-s ronresented by them, Attorneys Chaph
BROWN and Arthur H. OConnor loaay
a,ed a motion for a new trial In case Az
Denison and Leighton's subdivision, the
first of the street extension cases heara'
As stated in The Star, the appraisers re-
norted their findings in the case 10 Juase
Cox. in the District Court, Saturday lasa.
II ia that verdict which is prayed to DE
set aside.
The following reasons are assigned IN
support Of the motion:
I. Because the verdict is contrary to the
evidence.
II. Because the verdict is contrary to the
law.
reasonable.
w. Because of errors of law of the pre-
siding justice in his rulings and instruc-
tons at the trial to which exceptions were
taken at the trial by these defendants ana
allowed by the court.
", Because the damages found and allow
ed for the taking Of the land are INSULT
Gent
NJ. Because the ben e1-s found under sec
ton II of the act of Congress entitled An
act to provide permanent system OF h'gh-
ways in that part of the District of Column
bia living outside of Cities" approved March
9 1892 are excessive.
VII Because the assessment against the
land benefited thereby Of one-half OF the
amount awarded 10y the jury as damages
for each highway or reservation or part
thereof is illegal and void.
VIII. Because said act of Congress vi Ter
which these proceedings are had Is III Vlo-
latton of article five 60 OF the amendment
of the Constitution of the United States
and is void, in that the said act makes no
provision for the payment OF just compen-
| sation to the own.rs for the taking tor
public use of the private property involved
| in these proceedings.
TX. Because the proceedings had and TO
| be had under said act of Congress are, and
the purpose of the same is, for the benefit
of the general public in the District Of Co
| lumbia, and the provision In said act re-
quiring half OF the expense and cost
| thereof to be assessed upon property to be
| found by the jury III said act provided for,
to be benefited thereby, is in violation OF
| article five % Of the Constitution Of the
| United States and is void.
| x. Because all Of the provisions Of said
| act CT Congress are vague and uncertain,
| and incapable of enforcement at law and
| therefore void.
All Will Unite.
| AS heretofore explained in The Star, the
owners of all of the eighty-three parcels OF
| land embraced within the subdivision are
| dissatisfied with the findings of the jury
| and all Of them will, 1t is understood, unite
in the request to set aside the verdict in its
| entirety and grant a new trial. Many OF
the owners complain that the findings Of
the appraisers were surprisingly unfair an6
| ineuuitable, some of them contending thai
| they will be compelled to sell the remainder
| Of their lots to pay the benefits assessed
| a against them. Case 40 will, it is said, be
made the one in which the constitutionality
of the highway act will be questioned, ant
counsel hope that if Judge Cox cannot take
up the case tomorrow he will do SO no
later than Monday next. The issues pre-
scented in the motion of Messrs. Brown ant
O'Connor will, it is believed, cover all thu
alleged legal defects in the act. Counsel fo
the owners are confident that the Court O
Appeals will sustain their contentious, If
indeed. they say, Judge Cox does not.