Worcester morning daily spy., 1898-02-08
$7O,O48.91.
Award III Cases of Lakeside Co.
and Mrs. Kent VS.. City.
The Report OF the Board of Auditors
Meets With Approval of Council
for Both Sides.

Monday 1t bears the signatures of the
late Judge Edmund H. Bennett the
chairman, John e. McCusker of New
buryport, and Thomas Post of Lenox.
and has met with the approval Of Rice,
King & Rice. who appeared for the pc
titioners; and city solicitor Arthur P.
| Rugg, for the respondent. The total
award is $7004S91, which includes inter
est, and also $509010, which the city has
already paid the commissioners for their
fees. The award to Mrs. Kent is $10,-
800, plus interest, and that to the Lake
! side Manufacturing Company $4,000,
| plus interest, making the interest al
lowed the plaintiff from the time of the
| taking, June 81, 1895, $954S. The city
bears the expense and fees of the COM
mission and the actual costs of the suit,
| and one-half the expense of taking the
| evidence and arguments. In addition,
the claims which were put in for $4,000
| for the value Of land under the pond
and the dam as basin or for reservoir
purposes, and also the value of water
used for securing and washing pur-
poses, which, capitalized at per cent,
would amount to $50 900, were not passed
upon by the commission, but referred
| to the commission presided over by
/ Judge Bumpus of Everett, to be consid-
| cred in connection with the damages for
water power already before the Bumpus
commission, so-called The report OF
! the commission is as follows:
/ Under the foregoing agreement of
submission, and the two prior agree
ments mentioned therein, and for which
| it is a substitute, the undersigned, Ed
mund H Bennett, met the parties and
their counsel on Wednesday, June 90,
! 1897, and heard them on the preliminary
questions involved in that clause of the
submission by which "all questions of
| title and the construction of the terri
! torial extent of said taking by said
city, were left to the sole and final de-
termination of said Bennett, which
question was whether the mill property
Of the Lakeside Manufacturing Com
pany was itself taken by the city as
! being included in the description of the
property so taken.
| The city contended that the southern
! line of the taking was the line of the
1 DAM which would not include the mill
! buildings, but inasmueh as said taking
expressly included "a strip of ten rods
in width around the entire margin Of all
said reservoirs and ponds measured
| from the high-water mark and mas
much as strip of land of that width
measured from high-water mark on the
/ face or upper side of the dam of the
Lakeside Manufacturing Company, did
! include the mill of said company, the
undersigned Edmund H. Bennett did
award and determine that all the mill
| property on said ten-rod strip, legally
| included in the word land (Which was
| the phrase of the taking), should be
recltoned in awarding damages to said
! Lakeside Manufacturing Company for
| said taking,
! AT a subsequent hearing before the
! full board of referees, said Edmund H.
| Bennett was also requested to determine
and define the high-water mark" al
! luded to in said taking, and consequent
| ly the external limit or boundary line
| of the ten-rod strip of land so taken
| from Mrs. Kent and from said company.
! 1t did not seem to MIN within his pro-
vince or DUTY to determine and fix the
exact location of that boundary line on
/ the land of the parties so as to settle
! the title of the respective parties in the
land itself for their future guidance,
much less to decide whether the taking
4 filed by the city was sufficiently de-
finite and certain in this or other re-
| spects to be a legal and valid taking,
but only to so far determine this line
as might be important in awarding
damages in this particular case, and he
does not attempt to do more
| And even for this limited purpose the
evidence does not enable him to define
the line of high-water mark with alb
solute precision, but he does determine
and award, so far as this case is con-
cerned, that said line was at least as
high as tine Messrs. Kent found the
water on the land of Mrs. Kent at the
cove near the house about noon on Sat
urday, June %, 1895, the day after the
taking, and that the ten-rod strip from
that line extends so far upon Mrs
L Sc To-, r.
house and one corner more or less, oil
another, and that damages should BIZ
awarded in this case upon that basis
|. Under the foregoing decision, which
is approved and affirmed by all of thu
undersigned referees, we do award anC
determine, after full hearing of th,
parties, their evidence and their counsel
that Mrs Harriet N. Kent recover o
The city of Worcester the sum of 5000
{or all the property actually taken from
Ter by said city and for all damage
20 her remaining adjoining property
and also the sum Of $500 for the use o
her land and stable by said city TO
about year, more or less, while con
structing the reservoir dam and pip
line through her land Both sums Il
: be on interest at 6 per cent from Jun
, q. 1895, the day of the taking, unit
J paid. The same to be paid on remova
or extinguishment of all mortgages o
4 liens of any kind of the property
II. As to the Lakeside Manufacturing
p Company, the foregoing agreement sub
mitted to the determination of the un
I dersigned, the damages sustained b,
e the taking of land, water and waite
: rights and by the construction of an,
/ adueducts, reservoirs or other works il
relation to the waters Of Kettle brook
9 except ''the damages incidental to tn
4 use and velue of the water of sal,
: Kettle brook for purposes of power in
GLIDING any unoecupied fall or powe
Y that may be damaged by said taking
And it was proved or admitted at tn
hearing before us, that the assessmen
of all damages included in the excep
I ton above stated had been submitte,
5 to another board of referees, which wa
T already considering the same; and som
J reference to said board seems to b
; necessary, in order to understand on
j award, and for the future guidance O
s the parties themselves
1.-The Lakeside Manufacturing Com
, pany Gained TO recover by our awar
: several thousand dollars for the mi
r dam considered as a separate and in
= dependent structure but we were O
opinion that the existence and value o
: said dam was not only Incidental to,
1 but necessary for, 'the use and valu
Of the waters of said brook for purpose
of power" and that full payment 70
s the product must include some paymen
more or less for each and every ele
ment necessary to create that product
+ and, therefore. we did not include in GU
: award hereafter stated any allowanc
for the dam as a separate and independ
-.