The Washington times., 1913-08-15
Was Familiar With Sales"

Was Familiar With Sales"
"Why did you pick a man from the
sales department OF Stellwagen's COM
pany?''
He was familiar with sales in that
How did Mr.. SteIIwagen and the
Chevy Chase Land Company fare as
between the verdicts of the two condem-
nation juries?'
'T don't remember exactly now"
Did not the second jury give Steil-
wagen practically double the awards of
the irst?"
Maybe so. don't remember"
Mr.. SIN tn said that Captain Mark
ham Assistant Engineer Commissioner,
had thought the first awards too low
and had so indorsed the verdict.
What did he have to do with it,
demanded Mr.. Johnson. why should
he interfere with the legal department
"I the District government? It's out
side interference of tbs kind which
We are now Investigating.
Mr.. Smith said the Commissioners
were generally asked to pass upon the
condemnation verdicts.
Assessment for Benefits.
Mr johnson wanted to know if any
body had filed exceptions to the first
verdict except Mr.. Stellwagen. Mr.
Smith didn't remember.
Did Mr. stellwagen object to the
second verd.ct?'
Reading the names of the second con-
CemnatIon jury, Samuel Ross. A. P
Clark. Jr.. \. ii. Gait, Charles l. Corby,
and Albert Marsh, the chairman asked
II they had not seen prior service on
condemnation Juries. This was in line
with Mr.. johnson charge OF a jury
trust"
Mr.. Smith said that Mr.. Clark and Mr..
Ross had served ten and nine times, re-
spectively: that Mr. Gait had served
none ana that Mr.. CoTby and Mr.. Marsh
had served three times each.
Mrs Terry then took the stand. max
ing the preliminary statement that she
owned two lots across the street from
the .SteIlwagen property and abutting
the forty-hrsl street line at Harrison
street
What were you assessed for benefits
by the two juries?" asked Chairman
johnson.
The first Jury assessed me $3.50. and
the second, $3.50"
I understand that Mr.. Stellwagen ap-
Dealed from the first verdict and II was
set aside. What did he get?"
Mrs. Terry did not remember the
figures in the original proceedings. but
she said that Mr.. Stellwagen was al
lowed = cents 4 foot for gack ground
bv the second jury
on Harrison street" she said. fine
building sites. owned by Nj. Mandler,
was figured al only - cents"
Received No Benefits.
Mrs. Terry said that there was only
SCs.0i difference in the benefits assessed
Uy the two Jurles. although Mr.. StelI-
wagen received much higher damages
on the second verdict. When dr
Mandler took the stand he cUntended
lnat this Was because the amount Of
the awards mad been shifted as be
/" cen the property holders, for i'll
stance, that awards which should haze
zone TO hlm were put on the SJeII-
Wagen property.
Mrs Terry cOmpla ned at length be
cause FOrJy-nrst hadn't been extendjed.
! have never Understood Why the
street was taken uuJI they proposed 10
"Ntend ii" she said. Il have pad for
benefits which ! have not received. The
street is Just as il was three years ago.
There's still an cight-fgOt emJauku1e.t
theTe against my property
Answering Il series Of GI-.,Iuns ly
rh4il man Johnson, Mrs Terry 81 / that
Sukr believed the Stellwal.n Interests
had had in View only the having UT &
~ er
THE onI. reason for taking the
stg,et" sE- said il that sewer has
bcrr laid II rough this street - prop
at, Of TN" Chew Chase Land Com
sanl. Waen people, On InEomar street
....i;.d 80 share Tho sewer ;hoy sal!
4 ,.dn.t have CAPACITY and hey wouli
rave 10 = a new sewer.
"Th'E ,4rrI.C the s"Wor through to
the Chevy ri.se Land Company prop
rrfy and r..,H said il VA 100 small
f"r The us~ OF people on n" west sid