Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-07-26
RULE rs DISCHARGED
IN GRADE CLAIMS
coMMIssfoN CASE TODAY.

Argument was heard by Justice Gould In
| the District Supreme Court today on the rule
to show cause issued against the union termi-
nal station grade claims commission on the
petition of James ]. Farrell the owner of
property at the corner of I'd and G streets
northeast. Mr.. Farrell was represented at
the hearing by Attorney Leo Simmons, and
Special Attorney for the District A. Left
witch Sinclair appeared in behalf of Messrs.
Charles A. Baker, George w. Moss and
George Spransy. who compose the COM
mission.
After listening to the reading of the an
| swer filed by the commission to the rule to
show cause and. an argument by Attorney
Simmons. Justice Gould discharged the
rule. The court announced that this action
was based upon the fact that Justice Bar
nard, who presdes in the District branch
of the court, had refused to give instruc-
tions to the commission upon matters OF
law. Justice Gould stated that he agreed
with Justice Barnard that the court was
without authority to instruct the commits
son This commission" said Justice
Gould. lis no more an arm of this court
than is the new board of education recently
appointed by the court. Justice Gould
further said that If he had reached the con-
clusion that the court had authority to In
struct the commission he would have been
obliged to instruct contrary to the re-
quest of the petition, as the court was OF
tfh> 0piHfOn tHdt the ruling VI Inc SOLliuiS-
sion complained of was correct.
Explained in Answer.
The ruling of the commission objected to
is explained by the commission In their an
swer to the rule to show cause, in which it is
stated that the respondents now have under
consideration the claims for damages filed
by the owners of the property abutting on
the south side of H stree. between I'd and
Sd streets. and the east side of I'd street
between G and H streets northeast and that
the commissioners for the past thirty days
have been hearing testimony touching the
damages which have resulted to this prop
erty from changes of the grade of said H
street and said I'd street that during the
hearing of testimony counsel for Mr.. James
]. Farrell, the owner of lots 10, is and IL,
In square I52, which abut on ID street, Of
fered evidence tending to show that said
property had been damaged by the closing
of street northeast, EG.5 feet west of
said property as shown on the map filed;
that Mr.. Sinclair objected to the evidence
and after hearing argument upon the OBJ
jection the commissioners sustained 1t and
refused to receive the evidence; that coun-
sci for Mr.. Farrell thereupon asked Justice
Barnard to instruct the commissioners to
hear and consider the evidence in rela-
ton to the closing of G street, which the
court refused to do. Subsequently, it Is
further stated in the answer. counsel for
Mr.. Farrell appeared before the commits
sioners and requested a rehearing on the
aforesaid objection. saying that he thought
he could convince the board that error
had been made in refusing to hear the
evidence; whereupon the respondents grant
ed the request for a rehearing and heard
further argument upon the objection. Fur
Their consideration of the matter how
ever, ii was declared, only deepened the
conviction of the commissioners that 1t
would be improper to consider the evil
dence. and they accordingly adhered to
their ruling.
The outcome of the matter attorneys
state. shows that the authority of the COM
mission is limited to the consideration of
damages resulting directly from changes
made by the local authorities in the grades
of the streets around the union station.