The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-02-09
DO SPITE IMPROVEMENTS cor
A Curious Point Raised In Indiana for the
Courts to Decide.

INDIANAPOLIS, Feb. s.-A novel scheme
OF revenge. conceived by a e~aloonEeeper
and the brewers whose liquors he sold
and arising out of a bitter and ~long-pro-
tracted war against the sale Of intoNicants,
has aroused great indignation among the
wealthy property owners In a North Side
residence district. Resort IL about 90 be
had TO the courts TO prevent the carrying
out Of the plan. The question to be pre-
scented il a new one to be submitted for
adjudication, for IL IL based upon tho slle-
CATION that a man has no right TO improve
his property when the character of tho
improvements" has been selected for the
sole purpose of humiliating the community
and reducing the value of his ~neighbors'
property by inducing an undesirable ele-
meut to enter the neighborhood.
-Four or five years ago William Iron,
a gambling house owner and s~aloonkeeper,
purchased on the North Side a plot of ground
embracing an entire square, studded with
original forest trees, and beautifully situ-
ated at the side Of Fall Creek. Tn place
was improved. walks and drives laid out.
and il at once bloomed into a fashionable
resort. On warm summer nights hundreds
| of carriages turned into the brilliantly
! lighted drives and Fair Bank" as Iron
called, it became one Of the most popular re-
sorts Of the kind in the city,
One Sunday morning "A popular pastor
| called attention TO the fact that some Of the
members OF his church had been frequenting
the place and followed this announcement
with a philippe against Iron and his resort.
| Other ministers took up the same line and
| the best people in the city ceased TO patron
ize the place.
Almost coincident with this the residents
OF the immediate neighborhood brought
suit against Iron for violating the liquor
laws, charging that he was selling intox-
icants 10 be- delivered anywhere on the
grounds, though his license limited sales
TO the house. The courts sustained the
complaint. Then suits were brought for
damages to adjacent property. After fight
ing these through the lower courts the
Supreme Court again held against Iron and
he was adjudged to pay heavy damages.
The suits and the damages he was COM
PEELED to pay cost Iron something like
SIC, 900 and he was forced 20 close his resort.
Under the courts ruling he could dispense
liquor only over the bar OF the Casino. and
the place thus degenerated into a saloon
without the advantage Of being in a locality
where there was a steady patronage.
Then he sought a method of getting even
and at the same time Of getting something
out Of his investment. As a result he has
ordered the resort laid out TO accommodate
eighty cottages Of three to -four rooms
each, and he intends to rent them with
the ground, the cottages at So or 81 a month.
This will return him about 1875 per cent.
on his investment. The rental. however,
is fixed 20 attract negroes aud the poorer
class of whites. The wealthy persons who
live in close proximity on every side are
thus to enclose eighty or more families
whom they will regard as very undesirable
%neighbors.
Iron says he has tried 10 sell his property
at a fair value. but cannot do so, and that
the only way for him to get "A return on his
invest ent Il TO divide the ground and
erect the cottages upon II. Tn question
which will be presented 20 he courts is
whether a person, impelled 10y spite, may
thus improve his property to the detriment
Of all other property in the neighborhood.
The courts nave uniformly held that a
man may build what he pleases, provided
IL il not a nuisance, and Irons lawyers
have advised him that he may put up the
| oottapes and rent them TO whom he plenecs.