The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-11-08
THE DISTRICT NOT LIABLE.
Decision Of the Commissioners With
Regard to DIR. Guss, CIuip.

hSEnru To Dr. GusS' Claim.
Or. H. T. Guss, Of 1906 Binnev Street
northwest some months ago requested
that action be taken by the Commission
ers relative 10 damages TO his premises
by the setting of a curb in front of the
property The basis Of this request is
found i'm the fact that the District chang
Cd the grade and paved an alley adjacent
L" the property, leaving it several inches
below grade, and ia such condition as Ia
laJuTe Dr. Guss' lot a thorough iususc-
ton Of the work done was made by /. p
Bradshaw, Of the Engineer Department
VINO mas submitted the following state
meHJ IN reference 20 the matter.
MS Us claim for CONDENSATION grow
us N-1 Nl tsIuaS- iD the claimants resi-
dence, 1906 Binney Street northwest. al
l'Std as The immediate result of certain,
street work In the Improvement OF Rir-.,-
street, whereby, following O sudden rain
Ga ram. water was caused L. be- Imuouud-
co IN the alley adjoining his r.rsy1ig..g
and, seeping through the hons. wi 80,
lAt cellar, caused. 50 u is alleged rh. in
t'-i'l supporting piers 10 settle and con-
s'tL1Hl permanent injury 20 the house.
t'Stther WITH other minor damage 10 no
VII paper and frame work as Tho r..srrft
u tht ensuing dampness. The evidences
o. tAls ramage are shown By broken pa
tendency OF doors 10 bind bur 1 of,s,r7-e,I
~" signs OF settlement Of exterior brick
The particular street vvorl- tbs+ -s
brought IN question was The 7lfei-rrr. -
paving or the allsr entrance al f,frrf-r- ~
pL.iHlsrS 70 meet the sidewalk Grade fgb
SO. IS'I- me alley beyond. the paving of
"hlcH under the assessment system h-E--
ing followed some five months T.flr ft
80. -Sil. being left foot or So lower
than the entrance.
This condition. IL IS claimed. interrupt
ing the natural Cow of water falling on
the surface of the alley toward and into
Blnuey street. was the proximat- cause
81 The damage alleged, and putting this
with tho fact. as the claimant states.
that ln nine years that IN, house has
been built no evidence of damage. such
as alleged had developed until after the
doing Of this work. and the fact that as
] am told. upon his wiies complaining of
the condition Of affairs to- the Engineer
Commissioner. Dc personally directed that
an opening DE made through the paving
10 permit the water to flow Off into Tho
made out pTlmU rTCiC case sufficient
at least 10 euutl- him 20 ,GuJtu bile com
peus1JlCu without recourse To law
TO rebuff the Legality OF tn, ciain. how
ever. there are the levels Of the original
surface o. the alley showing the fall To
have been into the square and not toward
tho street, evidence that water stood in
the alley prior to raising the entrance Of
dOWuspout for years emptyiug onto the
front parking, and the absence 81 actual
settle meut OF the main walls iustifylug
the conclusion, IL Is thought first that
the collection Of water In the alley WIS
the unavoidable result of the heavy rain
fail and would not have flown off under
original conditions, second. that the CON
dltI0n OF the interior partitions alleged as
due 20 settlement Of the supporting piers
Is rather due To- structural defect iu the
shipping OF the Wrdging from between
the tops OF these piers and the timbcrs
resting on them. and third. as regards the
evidences % damUneSS as due To- Ihr gen
eral condition of the surrounding soil II
IN me night OF the facts as pres, ur-d the
case IS deemed one for equitable, settle
mtnt suggest reference To- tIy building
department for determination OF actual
damage.
c. =. Hunt. the Computing Engineer. Il.
forwarding this report recommended that
the complainant be- informed that the
commissioners ulu not consider In. Dis
trlct liable for the damages referred 10
ana trIt they were una Die tu [. l.a stems
toward making condensation Cor H..
same unless the claim is established in
the courts.
Capt Chester Harding suggested the
reference OF the matter To the Iusppcr0r
Of Buildings To- ascertain the uarfrr. aud
extent or the damages done 10 the prem
lses OF DR. Gu-s. SuDwd-u Ashford As
siEtaut Inspector of Buildings reDortrd
as follows on the point raised
III IS loInc on inspection that the de
i'cis IN the building are not tho result Of
work done los the District Tho defects
are the natural consequence Of work
mHuShlp OF quality TO allow the rand
deterioration of the building"
Major John BIddle. the Engineer Com
missioner. In forwarding the papers 10 his
associates, recommends that the writer
be Informed that after q careful invrgtf-
CATION Of the matter. the Commissioners
did not consider that the District was
liable FOR any damages IN this case and
II DID not appear that any defects i'm the
District.