Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-11-03
GINNING AT CONY STREET.

Mrs. Il. g. Robinson. lpD 1850
Harvey Chism estate
and others, 1890 1900
a. r. Mason, 1860 1900
Charles II. White. 200 400
Cony Female Academy,
Hannah Williams cS-
F. l.. Harrington, 800 210J
+. l.. Harrington, 1850 .t0J
Mrs. IitwnS, 900 2.pJ
S. 4. Folsom, 2G1p 800
George Hayes, 1853 1900
Nav Doe, 10 1900
Il. +. Gasln, 1850 1900
on REORGANIZATION Mr.. Titcomb
was asked to enumerate the real estate
transfers along Water street that has
been made in the last five years. He
did 50 and in answer to further uueS-
tons said that the best part of the
street was that between Bridge and
Winthrop streets and perhaps the very
Lest was between Oak and Winthrop.
but he had little choice between the
sides of the street. Where the west
side gained on account of its easier
adaptability to building operations. the
east side gave a good chance for the
use of Easements.
The south end of Water street above
the postOfiice would not be q good loca-
ton for millinery or dry goods bus
mess, but il might be satisfactory for Il
furniture store.
Then taking the Pray. RUnncLS and
Whitchouse stores on thc best part Of
the street and which in the aggregate
he valued at $50, 600. he was asked if he
considered that the kennehec Journal
building was worth as much C30o0o
was Mr.. Titcomb's valuation of the lat
ter buildlng) and he replied that h"
did. The Journal building was Il story
higher and was not nearly as Old u
building The Kenncbec Journal build
ing is as good to get money out of. in
his opinion, as tn" other three build
ings together. Considering land VAL
ues, the Kcnnebec Journal site Is
worth $50 per front foot and the Pray
-Runnclle- Whitehousc is worth $50 per
front foot according to his valuations.
The witness was shown Il list Of his
property in Augusta ana asked if, in
his opinion there had been any inten
tional over or under valuation of it ny
the assesSors. This led to prompt OBJ
iectiohs on the part of the counsel for
the Edwards co. and several similar
questions We're also objected To and
excluded by the court.
Attorney Baker asked the witness .
few questions in redirect. He asked
Mr. Titcomb why it was that some @.
his valuations on the north end of
Water street We're below those Of til"
assessors. Mr. Titco,nb stated that il
was because the tide of travel was
toward the south of the people who
came over the bridge. ninc-tcnths turn
ed south on Water street To do heir
trading and consequently that portion
Of the street was tn" larger market.
Concerning the section south of the
junction with Winthrop street ne said
that the poStofIice had been factor
in raising that property.
Attorney Baker next question WIS
i'm regard to Mr. Titcomh's knoWlcdG
of the Edwards property known as
the Riverside block. This was object
ed to by the counsel for the city 20
Mr.. Titcomb had not been allowed t
give values on property in which IL
held an interest.
Mr.. Titcomb'S front foot values on
Water street were 500 at Bridge sire"
and increasing to $215 and then d.
trcasing until 5000 was reached agai.l
ut Winthrop street. The corners would
add but little value in his estimation.
Attorney Williamson asked in re-
cross-cyamination if there was not in
addition to the tide of travel south
from the bridge another tide of travel
from Cushnoc Heights south through
the north end Of Water street. Tie
witness rcplicd that there was. This
completed the examination of Mr.. Tit
comb.
vJn1u-1y recalled DV
Attorney Baker and asked if he had
looked up the values on Capital street.
He replied that he had not. Attorney
Baker then asked him in regard tn thu,
Riverside block. The counsel for III"
city asked Mr.. Holway if he WAS Il
stakeholder in the Edwards Manufac-
turing Co. and upon receiving an al
firmative reply. objected to his answer
ing Attorney Bakers question. 1t was
ruled out by the court.
In croSs-cXamination the witness
was asked to enumorate the instances
in which he has acted as appraiser.
Attorney Williamson read the list anu
the witness asscnted to the items.
They toalled S1S.1?0 in his appraisalS
and the assessments on the same prop
crty amounted to S1S925. or but $l-o
more He was then asked what the
difference was between the duties OF an
appraiser and an assessor. This he de-
clined to answer Al first and there con-
siderable objection on the part OF co''n-
sci but the court ruled that inaSmucl
as it was simply a question of the stat
ute and he was lawyer he might an
swer. 1t developed that there was lit
lie difference according to the statute.
Attorney Heath asked the witness If
he had been down to the Kennebec
Journal building and made 4 further
examination of it. He said that he had
and found the building in very good
shape.
Aime Casavant was recalled and
asked If he had ever been before the
assessors and asked for an abatement
on property. He replied that he had
on two parcels of real estate fo,
other parties. One had been bourh,
Tor $1,000 and was assessed the ncv,
year for s14oo. the other was the nron,
erty of the st. John de Baptiste Socin
ty. which was bought for $1,000 ana W.
assessed the next year for s14oo.