Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-09-21

al it just the same as you can any fact
where it is not based upon contract or
agreement. | do not see how it is pos
sible to say that paving the whole
broad side of II lot is the same benefit
per square yard that it is paving the
front part, and yet, this seems to have
been assessed up in that way. That
is not the law and the people ought
not to be compelled to have ii assessed
in that way. They have a right to
have the law followed. / do not think
the council, when they thoroughly un
derstand it, have any desire to not
follow the law OF course. If the spe-
cial benefits are great enough to assess
up both the general and special bene-
fits, it may all be assessed up. When
YOU separate the general benefits from
the special, il is only for the purpose
of ascertaining what the special bene
fits are, in other words, it is only
q method of ascertaining how far you
can go and what is your limit. If the
special benefits are equal to all the
assessment it might be assessed ur
provided that was the proper proper
ton.
In this case there is some testi-
nlony that the paving of Jerome stree:
was OF more benefit to this lot than
the paving OF Third street think
clearly that is incorrect. l think there
was only one witness who so testified
and that is unquestionably wrong. In
the testimony in this case. I think Mr.
Marsh or Mr.. La Plant seemed TO he
the two conservative witnesses on this
question: and their testimony is that
the whole benefit is about $150. Mr.
la Plant thought possibly 1t might
so little above that: Mr. Marsh
puts 1t at $3.50 for both streets The
other testimony puts it lower than
that-inuch lower. l find that the paw
ing OF Third street cost about $3.50
have concluded that that should be
assessed ZIP against this lot--that the
special benefits for one quarter will
permit that. On Jerome street the tes-
timony that l consider impartial did
not put that above $780, and most of
them far below that. There is So
assessed UP against that fractional
piece at the west end. There is not
any testimony here. introduced by eth
er party. that l would care to con-
slider, as to how much actual benefit
the paving of that street was to each
of these parcels. but the testimony is
that putting the two together. or lie
other words. the benefit to the whole
IS 1t is used together, would not ex
eed $40 After you have taken $50
out OF $50, 1t doesn't leave much spe
cial benefits on that side of the lot SO
/ think while l can not disturb that
and that will stand-the $50 which is
not appealed from. is all that can be
assessed up against it without exceed
ing the special benefits.
You may prepare a decree assessing
up the amount of the costs 1929. or
substantially $3.50. My idea is the
whole of that is on Third street anc
nothing upon the side
No Order as to Costs.
No order has been made as yet as
TO the costs in the case, but as the city
has been sustained in two of the as
sessments it is thought probable that
the costs will be proportional between
appellant and appellee. The assess
ment that has been denied amounts to
s273.42, and those that are sustained
aggregate in amount $1SS.31. s129.1S be-
Ing that against the Third street
frontage, and s59.13 against the Jerome
street lot.
According TO the law Mr.. Laech's
paving assessments are now due. and
he loses the advantage of the seven year
because of his failure to
sign the waiver. The assessment levies
draw interest from Nov. 10. 1902. and
the penalty of l cent a month attaches
from April l, 1903. The original assess
nents, interest and penalty, he is now
to pay in a lump sum before
Dec. ], or the property may be sold for
taxes.
1t is likely that the council will take
action soon and order the case appealed
TO the supreme court. There are many
questions in the case to be
worked out by the supreme court, as
it has been the idea of City Solicitor
Van Law to raise every possible ques-
ton in this case. which was the first
to be brought to the attention OF the
lower court. The attorneys for the APP
pelant have also had this same view in
mind, for had the case gone wholly in
the city's favor an appeal would have
been taken. An opinion OF
the supreme court, therefore, Is wanted
by both sides.