Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-03-23
EXCEPTION MADE TO RULING
District Indicates Purpose of Carrying
Case to Court of Appeals.
THE COURTS INSTRUCTIONS
Damages and Cost Assessed Against
Property Benefited Where
Benefits Are Shown.


b. Bailey. John H. Nolan. Percy g. Foster,
Appleton p. Clark. IT,. James W. Dawson,
George &. Fleming ana Philip F. Larner
were occupied for several hours yesterday
hearing evidence and arguments OF counsel
In the matter OF the extension Of leth
street northwest from Woodiey road to
BIltmore street which has been pending In
the local courts Tor upward OF q year. At
the close OF the arguments which were
made in behalf of the property owners in
terested by Attorneys 8. T. Thomas, George
Francis Williams, Charles A. Douglass, B.
F. Leighton and Andrew Wilson, and by
Attorney A. Leftwich Sinclair on behalf Of
the District, Justice Barnard charged the
jury as to the law applicable to the case.
Justice Barnard instructed the jury.
among other things, that the entire amount
found to be due and awarded as damages
In the case should be assessed by them
against nearby property found by them to
be benefited by the extension, together with
the expenses of the condemnation proceed
ings. The court carefully explained to the
jury that the damages were only to be as
sessed according to the actual benefits and
advantages which would result to the ada
cent property from the extension, saying
that the benefits, however. could not ex-
coed the total amount of the damages and
the expenses Of the proceeding.
Meaning Of the Act.
Justice Barnard further instructed the
jury that in the event they should be unable
from the testimony to find benefits in the
neighborhood of the extension sufficient to
equal the entire amount Of the damages
and the expenses in the case they would
not be compelled under the law to assess
the whole amount; that the 10Th street ex-
tension act did not mean that the jury
should make their assessments for benefits
regardless of whether the property assessed
was actually benefited and simply with
yygny 70
cient to offset the total amount of the dam
ages and expenses.
In instructing the jury that it was not
compelled to assess all of the damages in
the case, irrespective Of the benefits and
advantages accruing to the property, JUS
tice Barnard followed the recent ruling of
the Supreme Court of the United States in
the Brandenburg condemnation case.
1t is said that the decision of the Supreme
Court in question may be far-reaching in
it's effect upon certain condemnation pro-
ceedings in the District. Many acts SINH
lar to the 10Th street extension act were
passed by Congress at its last session pro-
viding for the opening of streets in the Dis
trict and requiring that the entire amount
of the damages should be assessed against
adjacent property as benefits, and the
opinion of many attorneys is that If the
juries provided for these acts should not be
able, from the evidence submitted to them
to find benefits enough to equal the total
amount Of the damages the District Com
missoners will be powerless to extend the
streets, as the intention of Congress was to
require the property owners to pay all of
the damages and the expenses of the pro-
ceedings incident to many of the street
openings provided for
Extensions Conditional.
In other words the street extensions au-
thorized by the acts of Congress mentioned
conditional upon whether the juries
summoned shall assess benefits in the
vicinity of the proposed extensions in sum
equal to the whole amount of the damages,
including the expenses of the court pro-
ceedngs
1t is stated that the policy of Congress
Is to require the property owners to bear
the whole of the expense of the opening or
extension Of streets that are not SO situated
as to be of especial benefit to the general
public, and that many of the street extern
sions recently provided for by Congress
were authorized only upon the theory that
the owners Of the adjacent property should
pay the damages awarded for the land con-
demned and the expenses of the condem-
nation proceedings, no provision having
been made for the payment of any por-
ton Of the damages or the incidental ex-
penses by either the District or the United
States government.
Only Alternative.
An attorney familiar with condemnation
matters stated to a Star reporter today
that the only alternative in a case where
a jury should report Its Inability to assess
sufficient amount of benefits to wipe away
the damages would be to summon jury af-
ter jury until one was found that did sue
coed in figuring out sufficient amount of
benefits to efrectuate the intention OF Con-
gress.
Attorney Sinclair noted an exception to
the ruling of Justice Barnard upon this
question yesterday, in behalf Of the District
Commissioners, indicating an intention to
carry the point to the Court of Appeals for
hno{e nul ha jury
benefits less than the amount of the dam
ages and expenses.