Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-04-18
Jurixdiction Questioned.

MT Preston the burden OF tHStituting legal
proceedings.
JurisdictiOn Questioned.
Mr.. Shepard also questioned the opera
tive jurisdiction of the Commissioners over
the parking, and their consequent power to
readjust Mr.. Prestons parking lines, so as
to interfere with those established for him.
Outside of the legal aspects of the case,
Mr. Shepard coEtended that it was not
right that the privacy of his house should
be impaired, as he claimed it would be,
If the steps should be located as proposed
in Mr.. Preston's application so that per-
sens standing thereon could look in Mr..
Shepard's window.
Mr.. Prestons position was that as Mr..
Sfepards lot faces neither an avenue nor
a circle. but does face on 18th street, the
language of the regulation that 1.-The di-
vision lines of street parking in front of
lots facing circles or avenues shall be CO.
incident with the party lines of such lots"
does not apply to it; that Mr.. Shepard in
building as he did. took the risk of any
disadvantages that might result TO him If
the adjoining lot owner should prefer to
build his front elevation in different man
rer, and that much of the apprehended ill
convenience would arise from the manner
in which he built his house; that the fact
that Mr.. Shepard chose to construct his
front at an angle to the building line should
not deprive Mr.. Preston of the option of
putting his steps on that part of the front
of the Commissioners over the parking is
involved, Ls the authorities have no right
in making building regulations to deter
nine where steps may be placed, but that
such determination follows the choice of
the owner If the projection shall conform
as to extent, etc. with the regulations; and
finally that there never was and certainly
was not at the time Mr.. Shepard built his
house any regulation providing that park
ing lines on 18th street should be projected
Cbliquely to the building line.
Mr. Snowden Ashford assistant inspector
of buildings. who was present at the hear
iEg, stated that at the time Mr.. Shepard
built his house the regulation cited applied
tc avenues and not to streets, but that the
parking lines were extended in accordance
with what was undoubtedly then the GUS
tom.
Briefs Sent to Secretary.
The matter was submitted by the Com
nissioners to their attorney. a copy of
whose opinion, and of the briefs of counsel
for the contestants, they transmitted to the
Secretary.
The Commissioners believe that Mr.. Shop
ard did act in good faith in building his
house. as stated, and that the regulation
cited did not include streets specific ally, in
asmuch as the lot lines in the city. with
very few exceptions, are and always have
been at right anglss to the streets. In the
Fedder case Fitzgerald VS.. Vedder, equity
No. 1293S, Supreme Court ID. c. 1t was held
by Mr.. Justice Bradley that the parking
and sidewalk spaces must be measured by
lines at right angles to the street. and
measured from the intersections of the lot
lines with the building line. In making as
sessm.nts for sidewalks and other public
works the Commissioners for some years
have acted in accordance with this decis-
ion, and did SO act in the case of the side
walks in front Of the lots belonging to
Messrs Shepard and Preston. The ass 1885,
ments for these sidewalks have never been
questioned by either party concerned. So
that the question Of the parking lines in
front Of these two properties was really
acted upon by the Commissioners in 1885,
when assessments for sidewalks were made,
and this action has been uniform through
out the city.
The question is considered an important
one, involving as it does the payment of a
considerable sum annually for such assess
ments. 1t is believed that the decision of
Mr.. Justice Bradley is just and proper and
should be followed. Under these conditions
the Commissioners feel constrained to rec
ornmend the approval of Mr.. Preston's ap-
plication for the projection OF steps in front
of his building. This action they regret to
be compelled to take, since they think that
Mr. Shepard has acted innocently in the
matter and has grounds for complaint. and
has some rights in equity, although not in
law by which latter the Commissioners are
compelled to govern their action.