The record-union., 1898-03-16
Won LOBEN sells MUST PAY.
HIS RECLAMATION ASSESSMENT
Is VALID.
So Declares Judge Prewett, Before
Whom the Case Was
Lately Tried.

AAS@J
Judge Prewett of Placer, before
whom was tried the case Of ReclaIna-
tion District No. 551 against p J. : on
Loben Sells, has filed his decision. IN
which he ftnds for the plaintiff, sus-
tanning all the allegations in the com
plaint
The action was brought for the pur-
pose Of determining the validity ot an
assessment levied for the reclamation
Of swamp and overaowed lands in hap
is known as the Pearson District. There
were d large number Of defendants, but
all defaulted except Won Loben Sells,
who put in his answer and made a
stubborn contest, the case occupying
couple of weeks or more.
Won Loben Sells contended that the
court had no jurisdiction of the ac-
tion by reason Of the fact that he (Won
Loben Sels) is Consul for the Neither
lands for San Francisco. and also for
Paraguay. He insisted that the Fed
eral and not the State Courts had iuris-
diction Of all actions TO which he might
be a. party.
This point. Judge Prewett holds. had
been settled adversely to the defend-
ants contention by the Supreme Court.
as Wen as ali the other defenses set
up 10y hiu, except one-that his lands
We're not benefited by the proposed re-
cl2nation TO the amount of the assess
ment sought to be charged against
them. In other words. that he viii not
receive the same amount Of benefit as
his neighbors, in proportion to the
amount Of his assessment.
The case had previously been decided
against Won Loben Sells, ana was by
him appealed 10 the Supreme Court
it was sent back for re-trial or the
point just referred TO. Judge Prewett
reviews the evidence thereon at great
length
THE DECISION
This action is brought under an amend
men5 10 the Political Code for tie nl~
pose of determining the validity Cc an
assessment levied for the reclamation Of
s|,ai;np and over1iowed lands.
All or "a large plumber of Defendants
nave h4de default, except defendant p
=. NOn Loben Sells. This defendant sats
up, ilst that the court has no jurisdiction
OF the action. by reason of the fact that
the defendant is the Consul of the Netn-
erlandS to the city of San Francisco, and
4!so me Consul of the Government of
FaraS@ay to the same city 1t is for this
reason insisted that the United States
courts ana not State courts have juris-
tpii oi dcIl0NS 10 N01CH he is DdTtV
ms point. ! think, however is fully
settled by recent decisions of the Su-
preme Court Of this State, and it is no
longer an open one for determination by
Among the other defenses set up by
ma. 1t Is unnecessary for the court TO
notlee more than one. since every de-
tense except one has been already de-
Lermlned by the Supreme Court upon a
former appeal Of this case.
This point. upon which the case was
sent hack. arises upon the issue ten
deIed by the answer OF the defendant
that his lands were not benefited bv the
proposed reclamation TO the amount of
the assessment sought TO be charged
against them. That is to say. that ne
VIII not receive the same amount of
benefit as his neighbors, in proportion to
the amount of his assessment.
The amount now due upon the assess
ment Is about $4,000 and the defendant
very earnestly insists that he has him
self expended upon his land in reclama-
ton thereof a sum almost as great as
the amount of this assessment.
Perhaps his allegation in this respect
may be a lmoSt or quite the fact. but ii
does not thereIrom necessarily follow that
ne should not pay this assessment. 1t
appears from the evidence that the recla-
nation district in question embraces
about goo acres of land. of which about
$500 acres belong to this defendant and
the remainder to numerous owners in
small quantities. Thus il happens that
the Ieiehd4nt Is the only large land
o%HEt ~ the ulstflct. 100
1t further appers that about 1900 acres
OF land in the district are of the class
denOmnated by the Commissioners to
levy the assessment as low lands" and
about 100 acres of high lands; ana,
also that the low lands were assessed at
the uniform rate of about SO per acre,
and the high lands at q uniform rate Of
about 81 per acre.
The principal. and practically the only
question. for the court TO determine in
this case is whether or not this assess
ment. considering the elevation and loca-
ton of the lands and the opportunities
for their reclamation by the proposed
works. is a just and fair one in proper
uon 10 the benefits conferred.
1t appears that prior to 1882. the resi-
dents Of the diStrict-the predecessors IN
interest of the defendant included-Dy
hutn3i contract ana T@at5sele @ ne contriDslloIl
expended the sum OF Sl0&000 IN construct
ing General outside leVee surrounding
the whole district: that this IeVee was
constructed to replace one which had been
previously constructed by one John w.
Pierson. which leVee by reason OF i'm
perfect construction and particularly by
with which it was constructed, was de-
strOyod by high waters. OF this SGStOJ
expended for the construction OF the leEee.
the dctendants predecessors Dalu tllSlt
due and just proportion. In 1883 and 1SSl
this ieVee was increased in size ana
strength. the amount expended being
acre: and in 1856 or 81 the additional sum
of about 81 per acre was levied and ex-
pended in strengthening the leVee.
1t thus appearS-and consider j an
important point as to the merits Of this
caS9-Jhat the defendant and his, preGe-
cessOrs in interest paid no more than their
just and equitable proportion Of the eX-
pense Of constructing this outside levne;
ana if the assessment was throughout
levied according to acreage. IS it GER
tainlY was as to the $ and the 81 assess
menys. then he did not pay even his just
proportion as the court will hereinafter
show. In 1893 It became apparent 70
the landowners in the district that the
back ievee in particular needed much eX-
pendiJure in repairs: and owing to the
difficulty and embarrassment of collect
ing assessments by voluntary cOntribu-
ton. il appears that nearly every land
owner in the district including the de-
fendant himself. petitioned the Board OF
Supervisors 10 establish reclamation
district being the one that is now the
plaintiff in this action that the district
was IN fact organized; Trustees elected;
q plan of reclamation surveyed and es-
tablished. and this assessment levied for
the purpose of putting it into practical
effect.
All the landowners in the district ex-
cept the defendant have paid their as
sessnents upon this levee.
The particular point upon which the