Norwich bulletin., 1909-12-01
SUPERIOR COURT AT WESTERLY
Suit Against the Town to Recover Damages for Land Taken-Enumeration of Stonington School Children Two Fire Harms Tuesday.

for which the town council made ann pie reparation when the sum of $275 was offered by the town council to MT. Chapman.
 After a fifteen minutes recess coun sel for the town recalled Town Clerk Whipple, who testified from the rec ords that in 1906 at a financial town the improvement of the Watch Hill road.
 Tristan D. Babcock testified that he was a member of the Westerly town council and was president from June, 1905, to June, 1907, and presented a plan for the improvement of Watch Hill road at the financial town meet ing of 1906. The plan was prepared by Engineer Mckenzie and witness and the plan was virtually the same as finally adopted in the work that was done. Witness was with MT. Mckenzie appointed a. committee by the town council to visit property owners along the line of the proposed improvements and visited all parties interested and made report to the council In Janu- ary, 1907, called on MT. Chapman and went over his property and explained the plots and told MT. Chapman just what parts of his farm were wanted in connection with the proposed improve ments. The committee and Mr. Chap man went up on the knoll and MT. Chapman told the committee to take all that was wanted at that time and not come second time for more. The committee thereupon increased the amount of land contemplated to be taken by twenty feet; this was done to clear the obstruction and remove pos sible danger by giving a clearer view to automobilists. At that time a stone was placed back in the lot as sort of boundary and that line has not been overstepped. MT. Chapman set his to- tai damage at $275 and conditioned certain soil be piled for his conven fence. MT. Chapman wanted a good wall, but it was satisfactorily arranged that the old walls be reset.
 This agreement was considered sat- isfactory and report to that effect made to the town council Bids were then advertised for and contract was award ed. Witness gave the work attention during it's progress and when well un- der way MT. Chapman objected to the style of wall that was being erected, but did not object to the removal of the old wall or the progress of the work on the road. Witness informed contractor that the rebuilt walls were not satisfactory upon complaint of MT Chapman, who was present. Contract or said he would secure a better wall builder. Witness told MT. Chapman that if he was reelected to the town council he would see that enough of the contractors money was withheld until the walls were rebuilt to the sat- isfaction of MT. Chapman, but he was not reelected. The walls were in poor condition before removal and cattle occasionally got from the pasturage to the highway. Several portions of the new wall are poor and not as good as the old wall while other portions are much better than the old wall.
 He did not know of any stone being taken from the wall to the stone crusher, although he was on the work considerable of the time. There is more material in the new wall than there was in the old wall in what has been termed the second and third secc- tions. Soil was taken from the road side and on the land of MT. Chapman The pasturage owned by MT. Chapman,