Evening star., 1902-04-05
THE COURTS REASONS
Justice Hagner's Comments
on 10th Street Case.
AWARD CONFIRMED
DISCUSSION OF JURY'S ACTION
AND REQUIREMENTS OF Law.
Says Congress Should Make Commen-
surate Return for Outlay by
the District.
AWARD CONFIRMED

the District.
In the matter Of the proposed extension
of 18th street the opinion of Justice Hag
ner, heretofore referred to in The Star,
setting forth the courts reasons for over
ruling all the exceptions filed to the award
of the jury of appraisers and confirming
the award and verdict in all particulars, is
of general interest. The opinion, in part,
follows:
Il have carefully examined this cause
with due consideration of the interesting
questions it involves, as we'll as of its great
pecuniary Importance: for the court is not
often called upon to dispose of a cause in
volving municipal interests of such magni-
tude. The fact that the large amount that
must be raised by taxation. if the verdict
of the jury of condemnat ton is confirmed, is
to be borne single handed by the taxpayers,
| many of whom have no familiarity with
the route of the proposed improvements,
and may practically be almost as much
strangers to the locality many Wis
itors to the city, who will quite as much
share the benefits of the work, renders the
case of still greater importance.
1T would have been more in sympathy
with the previous action of the government
If it had consented to divide with the local
! taxpayers this expense. By grant from the
original proprietors the United States be-
came the owner in fee simple of all the
streets and avenues and of the spacious
| squares now of inestimable value, upon the
understanding that a comm ensurate return
| should be made by Congress for the benefit
| of the District. If the government is to be-
come the proprietor of this fine street, Ii
would be but equitable that it should
tribute in equal degree toward the cost of
| it's construction.
Donations Made.
Some of the land owners in the line of
the condemnation have acted upon the sug-
gestion in the act of June 6, 1900 and have
| literally donated portions of their holdings,
| evincing thereby public spirit as we'll as
| wisdom; for it is the liberal hand that
maketh fat, and he that watereth shall be
watered also himself But still a great
sum remains to be paid by the taxpayers
| The matter for decision is whether the
| award of the jury of condemnation shall be
| confirmed; and this depends upon the ques-
tions whether the requirements of the act
have been followed by the jury, and wheth-
er their verdict and award was just and
reasonable
"A large number OF exceptions on behalf
| or the land owners were filed within the
| thirty days limited by the statute as were
| those filed in behalf of the District. OF the
232 owners, 33 excepted to the award
Grounds for Objection.
| these exceptions have very familiar
! sound. l have encountered them repeated
| ly in the other condemnation cases, as filed
by the land owners. They were simply,
! first, that the valuations by the jury were
much too low, and. second, that the as
sessments of benefits were much too high.
In the present case, for the first time.
| the exceptions filed by the District of CO.
| lumbia occupied the old ground formerly
| held by the property holders; and the at
| torney of the District is here insisting that
| the award should be set aside because the
valuations are too high and the assessments
| are too low.
While all the land owners, exceptir.,
| two, have withdrawn their objections, and
| now have not word to say in behalf Of
| their former argument, and warmly favor
| the ratification of the award, the plaintiffs
| and the defendants have exchanged rapiers;
| and come now, on the exceptions of the
| District, to consider the contentious they
have opposed in the previous cases. The
rules by which the court is to consider tbs
| objections have so repeatedly been laid
down by the court that it is not worth
while to repeat them at length.
| Matter of Valuation
| In the absence of all evidence of irregu-
| larity or misconduct and of any proof of
grave error of judgment on the part of the
| jury, the court cannot be expected to listen
| to mere assertions IN argument that the
! jury did not value the land high enough
| when there is on the other side equally
| positive assertion that they valued it too
| high AS the judge has not had the oppor-
| tunity to view the land that the jury en-
| joyed, he cannot assume from the mere eN-
| animation of the lines a plat that the
| jury were certainly wrong because they ar
| fixed a higher valuation to one lot than
| they gave to the adjacent lot. He can know
| nothing of the actual inequalities of the
| ground. To conclude that there is no in
| trinSic difference in value between the lots
| in the absence of any proof to that effect
| would be entirely uniustifiabe, in the face
| of the verdict of seven competent men. act
| ing under oath, who had ample opportunity
| to examine the land. and from their view
| and the evidence to form accurate judg-
| ment to the ultimate justice Of the
| award.
AN appellate court, when urged to grant
| new trial upon facts. after the trial Judge
| has refused the application, certainly re-
lies upon the decision of the judge who
| heard the cause below. who saw and heard
| the different witnesses, observed their de-
| meanor, and had the opportunity to COM
| pare them; and he has refused to dis
| turb the verdict they will allow it to
| stand.
Sees No Specific Defect.
"As see specific defect or error point
ed out with respect to any particular prop
erty. 1 can find no ground to reverse the
| whole finding because the act authorizes
l
| whole or in part, when satisfied it is unjust
| or unreasonable The same ground must
exist for setting aside the verdict as to one
parcel as to the whole: and If there is moth
ing unjust or unreasonable In any one OF
the individual findings, there can be nothing
unjust or unreasonable with respect to the
aggregate of these findings Fallacious ar
guments gain no strength by being assem-
bled. Fifty counterfeit coins Will never
| amount to one good coin; neither will sound
points be weakened by being assembled.
Nor do I find any support of the objec-
ton that the jury disobeyed the court s
instructions. 1 have re-examined them
carefully, expressly that relating to the
assessments for benefits. With reference
to that the jury was told they were not
limited to the distance of go feet from the
side of the new street in assessing parcels
| Of land they might find would be benefited
and this is what the act authorized the
Jury to do. II they went beyond the $50
feet they were justified in doing so. both
by the statute and the instructions of the
| court
A Further Reason.
GAS further reason why the court should