The star-independent. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1904-1917, 1914-11-19
SPAT OF lawyers
EhLIVENS court
Continued From First Page.


pairing the width of Front street as
shown on the map with that of other
streets concerning the widths of which
he had positive information.
Counsel for the plaintiffs immediate
ly figured they had discovered loop
hole for gaining a point and produced
map of their own, on which also no
scale was indicated. They sought to
have the engineer tell how he deter
mined the width OF streets on that map.
The plaintiff s map had not been
admitted as evidence and City Solici-
tor Seitz moved to strike out the testi-
mony concerning it, which was intended
to be offered as part Of the cross
examination.
THAT is not cross examination, and
[ move to have it all stricken from the
record" said the City Solicitor.
Lawyers in Fresh spat
81 have just as much right to,cross
examine witness as you,' snapped
Mr.. Hahn. "You are swapping and
snarling all the time, trying to prevent
my making progress.
Judge Johnson interrupted by ruling
out the testimony relating to the plain
tiffs map.
Mr.. Seitz went right ahead with the
argument with counsel.
''ls that soF' he asked of Mr.. Hain.
"Do you think so, eh?''
eyes, and if we wanted to do that
we can do it, too
''Well, you will limit yourself to
proper cross-examination and the Court
has stricken out your testimony and out
she goes. -
The wrangling ended with Judge
johnson FtlmaFking: ,.s z -.
"You fellows are fighting without
being mad, | assume. -
A moment later the lawyers were
whispering to each other, presumably
for the purpose of laying plans for
making better progress, as suggested by
the trial Judge.
The property owners claim title to
strips of ground on the west side of
Front street, approximately 1S5 feet
long, and extending from the old line Of
Front street, near Conoy, to the low
water mark. The City contends the
property owners have title only to the
ground as far as the high water mark
Estimates Are Called for
Also the City contends that in tax
ing the ground for the reopening Of
South Front street it did not infringe
on the rights of the plaintiffs, and that
even if a small part of the individual
owners ground had been taken, the
rest of their property will be benefited
by improvements the City contemplates
such as planting shrubbery, making
ND ihap N Inn M
with retaining wall.
The witnesses who were called yes
terday were asked to estimate the mar
iet value of the plaintiffs property
before and after the taking of the
ground and the street opening. In each
instance the City Solititor asked the
witnesses to assume, when making es-
Inmates, that the city will carry out its
plans for identifying the South Harris
burg river front.
81 object to that said the oppos-
ing counsel. "That is mere guess work.
You can't assume what the City will
do. They say they will do this and
that, but will it be done'"
Judge johnson overruled the obiec.
tion and directed the witness to 20 on.
Mr.. Hain again objected, this time max
ing a. more extensive argument.
Il dom want to express an opin-
ion," began Judge Johnson but l
have driven along the river front sew
eral times. Is there any doubt in your
mind, Mr.. Hahn, that the City will carry
out its improvement plan just as it has
done and we are told it will do?''
"Well, | don t know about that
the attorney replied.
Witness Thinks 5000 Fair
In obtaining from witnesses informa-
tion that deals directly with the ques-
tion of damages, the City Solicitor ask
ed for opinions as to losses or benefits.
based upon the assumption that the
plaintiffs are without legal right to
construct. permanent building on tnar
part of the ground to which they claim
title, situated between the high and low
water marks
Many of the witnesses, however, pre-
ferred not to make such an assumption.
One said he thought that since the
plaintiffs paid for their ground they
should be given ample return for what
they lost. Besides, the witness said,
he could not understand that there is
any existing legislation That will not
permit man to do with his property
"just as he feels like.
The witness said finally, that tine
strip of ground belonging to each plain
tiff between the line of the high water
mark and the low water mark is worth
not less than 5000. He said he would
not offer reason for fixing that amount
save that it is based on what the own
ers faid for it. That amount is $400
less than claimed by each plaintiff.