Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-29
.ECKING ON ALLEYS
Revocation Of Order for ELM.
irlation Discussed.
ANSWER FILED TODAY
ATTORNEY FOR SAMUEL ROSS
AND ROBERT THOMPSON HEARD.
Review Of the Conditions Surrounding
Block II and Other Matters
Allegations Denied.

Ross and Robert E. L. Thompson, an an
swer to the application made by Attorney
Francis M. Cox and others that the. Com
missioners revoke the order passed by them
last May, eliminating the alleys in block
IA, Center lexington In the ex parte
hearing on this matter held before the
Commissioners several weeks ago Mr.. Cox
declared that the Commissioners had been
imposed upon by Mr.. Thompson with re-
spect to securing their consent to the elm
nation of the alleys in the block men,
toned.
Commissioner Biddle today recommended
that Mr.. Cox be notified that he may call
at the District building and have an OPP
portunity to reply to the answer submitted
by Attorney Darlington If he SO desires.
Until Mr.. Cox reviews the answer. the Com
missioners will take no action in the case.
At the hearing before the Commissioners
Mr.. Cox argued that the Commissioners
should not order the elimination of the al
leys in block IA while a suit was pending
in the courts of the District, which it was
claimed was connected with this question,
and, also, Mr.. Cox declared that the order
closing the alley was obtained by impos-
ton and fraud.
Attorney Darlington in his answer con-
tends that it is not the duty of the Com
H1lSSlOHeTS 10 concern themselves dUOul
controversies between individual citizens
over the existence or the proper construc-
ton of private contracts between the citi-
zens in respect to certain building restric-
lions in Center lexington
Matter Of Restrictions.
Mr. Darlington declares that block ii
was never subject to the restrictions pro-
hibiting the establishment of commercial
and manufacturing enterprises as is alleged
by Mr.. Cox and other citizens in Ecking-
ton. The answer recites the story of the
subdivision of the land in support of Mr..
Darlington's contention He also declares
that Mr.. Cox and others are endeavoring
to gain their ends by application to the
Commissioners rather than through the
courts
In contradiction of the allegations made
by Mr. Cox and others at the hearing be-
lore the Commissioners Attorney Darling
ton AYERS that Mr. r. E. L. Thompson at
the time the order eliminating the allevs
was sought was the grantee of the proper
ty in block IA in fee simple, and the owner
of lots and 2. Mr.. Cox argued before the
Commissioners that Mr.. Samuel Ross was
in reality the owner of the land in block a.
with the exception of lots ! and 2 and
that Mr.. Thompson merely held Mr. Ross
property ia trust and that the transfer was
made to Thompson in order to obtain the
elimination of the alley in the block. and
afterward the property was transferred
back to Mr.. Ross.
Alleged Misrepresentation.
With regard to the alleged misrepresen-
tation by Mr.. Thompson, Mr.. Darlington
says:
Section 1907 of the code, In its phrase
ology relates to the case In which the fee
simple title to an entire square is vested
In one person, or in tenants In common. or
partners, and such owner or owners desire
to improve 1t by the erection of a building
covering two-thirds of its area or for the
purpose of some business enterprise. etc.
To bring themselves technically within the
letter of this section of the code without
consulting counsel and without the slight
est conception that they were violating the
rights OF anyone, Mr.. Johnson ian employee
OF BARBER ROSS? conveyed to Mr.. Thomp-
son the parts of the square not already
owned by the latter and Mr. Thomson
thereupon made the application making no
secret, as am informed, of the true facts
OF the transaction and its PURPOSES
Mr. Darlington mentions that IL counsel
had been consulted it is probable some other
way than that adopted would have been
employed TO secure the Commissioners
consent to eliminating the alleys in block
IA. Mr.. Darlington says that even in the
event the order elimina ting the alIevs is
revoked, "Messrs Thompson and johnson
need only make a deed of their respective
should reconvey the square as a whole to
them, to hold as tenants in common in the
proportions of their respective interests
when they would thereby be brought strict
~ and technically within both the letter
and the spirit of section 1907 of the code
without the possibility of the imputation
of misrepresentation, imposition or fraud"
Not Regarded as Substantial.
Mr.. Darlington in conclusion argues that
the 1rregularity alleged was technical onlv
and that 1t should not be given weight as
a substantial objection
From the statement of the case made nv
Mr.. Cox before the Commissioners 1t an
peared that Mr.. Thompson owned in fee
simple lots ! and in block IA, and that
Samuel Ross owned. the remaining twenty
three lots in the square. 1t was stated
that Mr.. Ross transferred his interest in
the square to an employe by the name of
Johnson, who. it is stated, held the prop
erty in trust for Mr.. Ross. Later so it is
declared, Johnson transferred the twenty
three lots to Mr.. Thompson, who obtained
the obliteration of the alleys in the block
from the Commissioners and shortly
afterward transferred the twenty-three
lots back to Johnson. 1t was to this al
legged procedure that Mr.. Cox and others
objected.
Quotations From Code.
Section 1907 of the code, relating to the
obliteration of alleys reads as follows:
w hcHeVoF the lltlc' III Ice Simple TO an
entire square is vested in one person, or in
tenants in common. or partners, and such
owner or owners desire to improve said
square by the erection of a building there
on, covering not less than two-thirds of
the area thereof, OF. for the purpose of
some business enterprise the Commission
ers of the District may, on the petition of
such owner or owners, setting forth such
ownership, the purpose for which it is de-
sired to use such square. and the number
and the time in which it is proposed to i'm
prove the same, on being satisfied of the
truth of the facts stated in the petition,
and also that the proposed change and use
will not be detrimental to the public in
terests, make an order canceling any pre-
vious subdivision of said square and OBJ
literating all alleys therein"
To Discuss Jap Restrictions.
aIrrI I2nIrp Xictaria Novarahar