The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-08-16

| day in court, and, in fact, one of the
most important decisions that has
| been handed down recently, was that
| in which Judge Archibald annuls the
J Mulberry street paving assessment and
| incidentally the Providence road inn
provements.
The finding was made in the case
| stated between the city of Scranton
| and Henry T. Koehler, better known
| as the Mulberry street assessment
| case.
| The special facts of the case as sue
| cinctly set forth by Judge Archibald in
his review are these: The assessment
was made by the city engineer accord
| ing to the foot-front rule. Through
| several of the blocks double street
car track is laid. The abutting pro-
| perty owners on such blocks having to
| put up with the annoyance of the dou
| BILE tracks and passing cars deemed Il
| proper that there should benefit from
| the rebate which comes by reason of
| the street car company paving between
| its tracks. The city engineer, how
| ever, figured up the total square yard
| age of the pavement for the entire
| length of the street and divided the
cost thereof according to the total foot
frontage. Thus making property hold
ers who had no car tracks in front of
their properties liable for less pave
ment than fronted their places and
compelling those who lad car tracks
passing their properties pay for more
pavement than was actually laid be-
fore their premises.
JUDGES CONCLUSION.
fifty decisions that appear in one way
| or another to the matter in hand,
judge Archibald draws this conclusion:
"On the four blocks on which the de-
fendant's property is situated there is
less pavement laid, anI less pavement
| in consequence for the property own.
ers to pay for. Pavement of n part of
the street has been imposed upon the
| street railway, and the adjoining own
eis would seem entitled to the advant-
| age of it, or. in other words the spec-
ial benefit 10 the properties in these
| blocks may be regarded as measured
by The extent of the pavement in front
of them. The same is true of the block
between Wyoming and Penn avenues
| where the street railway company has
been required to pave the space occu-
|
foot of the street on each side of it,
as we'll as that between Penn and
| Franklin avenues, where it also has a
| single track, but has paved siihply the
| space between its rails.
"As the matter now stands, how
ever, the advantage derived from the
| paving done by the street railway is
distributed among all the properties
| he " af
ment, of them several blocks away in
stead of being confined to those pro-
perties Immediately adjacent to it. If
this We're carried to its logical conclu-
sion properties on the portion of the
| street wholly occupied by street rail-
way tracks might be made to pay as
much as these where the street was
entirely clear of them, a position which
! we do not see our way to sustain 1t
follows that the assessment made by
the city engineer is incorrect all that
the defendant can justly be called
upon to pay for the Improvement. in
front of his property, is mis- proper
| tionate share of it, at the same rate as
others similarly situated, which prac-
tiCally amounts in case of paving
such as this is. whatever it might in
|
cost of the pavement in front of his
property with a pro rata part of the
street intersections added. According
to the assessment made by the city
engineer the defendant is called upon
to pay 1886, while, in our judgment, on
the basis suggested, he should he as
| seSSed with but $lS5.
Judgment is therefore entered in
| with he Sti nf
case stated in favor of the plaintiff for
| SlS5, without costs"
| ITS CONSEQUENCES.
| All the consequences of this decis-
| ion could not be definitely arrived at
| yesterday owing to the absence from
the city of City Solicitor Mckinley,
| who, more than anyone else. has at his
! fingers ends the run of the matters
that are likely to be affected. 1t is
| known, though, that the Providence
| road paving will be held up, as the as
sessment for this Improvement was
! made by the same rule that governed
the assessing of the cost of the Null
berry street pave.
City Engineer Phillips was COM
! PEELED to follow the foot front rule in
making these assessments, as the or
dinance in each case specifically pro-
| vided this. The new assessment.
which will be necessitated If Judge
| Archbald's ruling stands-wil most
| likely be made after the manner in
which the cost of the Pine street pave
| was assessed. Each block from the
| center-point of one cross street to the
| center point of the next will be desig-
| mated a taX-district and the cost of
| paving within each district will then
| be divided pro rata according TO the
| foot front rule. This manner of maxi
| ing an assessment, according to Judge
| Archbald's opinion, was followed in
| many cities and stood the test of law.
| 1t is quite likely that the Archibald
decision will meet with rigorous oppo-
| sition and that the Supreme court will
| once more be called upon to adjudi-
| cate complication OF the present be-
| muddled municipal improvement stat
utes. Even if the city was disposed to
| accept Judge Archbald's ruling With
| out a struggle, it is not likely that
| there would be acquiescence on the
| part of the Mulberry street property
| holders, whose assessments by reason
of the decision are enlarged propor-
tionately as much as Mr.. Koehler's was
| decreased.
SOUTH ARLINGTON DIVIDED.
| II No-, Toa,axJea. rUI,,a. ...As