The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-02-06

This is neither an equal assess
ment nor an even handed dispensation
of the law" was one of the comments
of Judge X. w. Archibald in the case
Of the city of Scranton against Han
nah Levers, in which he handed down
an opinion yesterday.
The city asked for judgment for
want Of sufficient affidavit in defense
seeking to collect an assessment for a
sewer in Decker's alley when she had
paid an assessment for a sewer in
Lafayette street. The rule was dis
charged in the following opinion
1t was decided in Michcner VS.. Phila-
delpha, rs Pa. 535, that the councils OF
q city are the sole judges OF the neces-
sity for Il sewer. and that their judgment
is conclusive; and that where property
was bounded by city streets on three
sides 1t could be made to pay by the foot
front for sewers constructed on all sides
of 1t regardless of whether it was. or, III
fact, could be, benefited to that extent.
This seems an injustice, and II it is
tho necessary result of the present state
Of the statute law the legislature should
promptly remedy 1t. In marked contrast
it was decided by the court of errors OF
New Jersey, In state VS.. Newark. "a n.
]. Law Ais, reversing the Supreme court
of that state, that the expenses OF Il To-
cal improvement-the repair of a road
way-could only be constitutionally i'm
posed on an adjoining property to the
G, tent of the benefits exceptionally con-
feri ed thereby; and that an act Of tho
legislature which imposed on such prop
crty TN arbitrary amount, viz: two
third the cost Of the Improvement
without regard to the extent of the spe-
cial benefits, was unconstitutional ana
void.
CANNOT COLLECT TWICE.
But whatever be the respective merits
Of these two decisions the defendant Is
entitled to have the law as it is to be
taken applied equally so that its rigors
shall not be visited or her alone.
She may not be able to escape an as
sessment along the side as well as the
front of her small property at the cor
ner of Lafayette street and Decker s
alley, although it would seem to be plain
that she cannot be benefited to the eN.
tent of her frontage on both. But if that
is to be the rulc why Is it not enforced
against the large block bounded by
Swetland street, Howell street. Decker 5
alley and North Main avenue?
Here are twenty-five lots, each one
fully as large as that belonging to the
plaintiff, and but one of them Is sub
jected to any assessment for this sewer,
although 1t runs along that block for 800
feet on Deckers alley and 100 feet on
Howell street, with a lateral of over
100 feet more on Swetand. BY the fail
ure to bring this property into the gem
eral assessment nearly 400 feet of 'front.'
age is relieved from contributing to the
expense of the sewer and as the entire
length Is but about 1000 feet, three-Quar-
ters Of the property abutting on the line
of 1t is assessed for the whole. each
property owner being thus compelled To
pay IL quarter more than he otherwise
would be.
1t is said. however. that the block of
land so excluded fronts on North Mann
avenue, and was omitted because 1t had
already been assessed and paid. accord
Ing to its foot frontage, for sewer laid
along that thorcughfare. But how does
that meet the situation? The ordinance
which provided for this sewer directs that
| 1t shall be paid for by assessments ac-
cording to the feet front on the taxable
| property abutting upon the line of it.
NO INTENTION TO EXEMPT.
| There is no evidence in the ordinance
| of an intention to omit or exempt the
block which has been left out, or any
| other piece of property which falls with.
| in its terms, and we must therefore con-
clude that the existing conclusion is m
assessment I'm mlsapplying tine rule. We
| cannot sanction the idea without some.
| thing more than appears on the record
| that IL was the intent of councils to COM
| pei one property to pay on two sides
| of it, and another, no differently stu.
ated, to pay on but one.
This is neither an equal assessment MOI
| an cven-handed dispensatiOn of the law
; and as the error so committed is inher-
| ent In the assessment 1t vitiatc5 il, to al
| least the extent of the excess, and tho
, city Is not entitled to enforce it as II
! stands. The affidavit of defense Is some
what meagre in it's statements, but there
is enough in our opinion to show the
facts to which we have alluded, and the
| rule for judgment is therefore discharged