The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-10-13
Work Of Opening Second and
Third Streets Stopped.
Judge Hazen Granted Iniunct-
ion Against the Council.
ADVICE DISREGARDED.
Committee Did Not Follow Ad-
vice of City Attorney.
Assessments in Benefit District
Not Just.

When the three appraisers appointed
by the city council to decide the levy to
be made on Fourth Warders in the
benefit district" went to work, they
thought it would be right to count the
lots in the district and then divide the
amount to be raised by the number of
lots to determine the amount of the as
sesSments. Judge Hazen explained this
morning that they had been in error.
When the city was called upon to
open an extension of Second and Third
streets, and widen a portion of Fillmore,
the council picked out benefit dis
tr1ct'' to pay the expenses. This was in
accordance with law giving them the
right to do So They decided that the
property which would be benefited was
surrounded as follows: Bounded on the
north by the city limits, on the east by
Polk street. on the south by Fifth street
and on the west by Buchanan street
and the city limits, a tract containing
about eighteen blocks. The next move
was to appoint three appraisers to de-
eide what the property owners in this
district would pay. The council thought
that 1t would require about Sc, 500 to
make the improvements, and the APP
praiSerS were supposed to divide the
amount according to the benefit derived
from the improvements. The appraisers
decided that the people who owned
property in the remotest portions of the
district should pay the same as the
opened or widened. A number of the
property holders who were the lossers
by this scheme filed an injunction
against the city council to prevent the
levying of the proposed benefit tax,
which amounted to about $40 per lot all
over the district. Judge Hazen gave his
decision this morning. and the council
will have to begin the work again.
Among other remarks he made about
the case Judge Hazen said in giving his
decision:
1T has been said that the court has
no jurisdiction to interfere That would
be right if the appraisers had exercised
any judgment in the matter, as the law
says they shall. 1t shows on the face of
it that they did not. Some things arr
them. No one can make me believe that
the man living several blocks from the
improvement receives the same benefit
as the man whose property faces new
ly opened street. Another reason for
sustaining the injunction is this The
finding of the appraisers was not legally
approved by the city council. They
called a special meeting, attended to
other matters and then. seemingly be-
cause they had time left, took up the
report of the appraisers and approved
it. The law is that the, council can only
transact business at "a special meeting
which has been Indicated in a public
call. There WAS neirpHeNious. notice that
this business was to be transacted at
this meeting, therefore the finding of
the appraisers was never legally APP
proved. The injunction will be sus
tanned"
City Attorney Spencer said he did not
wish to file an answer. On the side he
remarked: L knew it would go that
way l told the committee what to do
and they didn't do it
The appraisers were S. NJ Miller, r.
NJ. Spivey and S. Dolman.