Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1918-05-10
CITY MUST PAY FOR
ALL PROPERTY
IContinued from First Page ]

S25, 900 in addition to the other ver-
diets and viewers awards for prop
the ruling that Harrisburg must pay
erty which will be taken to complete
the River Park improvement.
To Appeal Higher
City Solicitor John Z. Fox an
nounced the case will be appealed to
the Supreme Court. While it will
be too late to have it heard and DIS
posed of at the session of the high
er court in this city May 81, it is
likely motion will be presented,
asking permission TO present the case
III the early fall or winter in Phila-
delphia.
Should the Dauphin courts be sus-
tained it would mean that Harris
burg must pay approximately S97,-
600 for the properties involved, $73,-
900 for buildings and ground as of
1871, and $24, 900 for additions since
that time.
When the proceedings to take all
the property on the west side of the
street was started the viewers de-
Cided not to award damages for any
improvements after 1871 relying up
on an act passed that year which
they construed TO mean that own
ors could not recover for buildings
erected on any highway after hat
date. Exceptions to the viewers re-
port were dismissed and later ap-
peals were taken from the awards.
Recently the eleven appeals were
either tried before a jury or verdicts
by agreement were taken in which
II was stipulated that a certain
amount was to be allowed for the
properties as they stood prior to
1871 and another amount for i'm
provements made up to August, 1914,
when Council passed the ordinance
directing the taking of the property.
The appeal of Arlanda P. Dinta-
man. owner of 110S to 1928 North
Front street, inclusively was the one
on which Judge McCarrell made the
ruling. At the time of the jury trials
it was agreed decision on the APP
plicability of the act of 1871 should
be withheld until verdicts were en-
tered.
Dintaman was awarded s14,500
for his properties as they stood in
1871. and $500 for improvements
since that time. The court decision,
If sustained, will mean that he will
receive from the city $4,000.
Owners Affected
Other property owners affected
follow:
Frederick w. Giede, owner. 1114,
1,4S0 in 1871; S1,500 for improve
ments.
e. G. slabach, 1880, $4,24O in 1871,
$4,000 for improvements.
John Yingst, 1132-1200, s7,393.4S
in 1871; $4,000 for improvements.
Harry ]. Berrier and Margaret c.
Berrier 1204-06-10, $9,371 and $5,-
$50 in 1871; $4,000 and $4,000 for
improvements.
George f. Spangler, 1920, $2,65O|
in 1871; $3.50 for improvements.
Fred w. Dinger, 1924, $4,000 in
1871; $3.50 for Improvements.
Lewis Finfrock, $4,000 in 1871;
S1,500 for improvements.
Mary Flowers, 81 $50 in 1871; ST.
500 for improvements.
Total verdicts for land and prop
erty as it stood in 1871, S73, 3,714.4S;
for improvements since that year,
$4,000.
Judge McCarreIFs Opinion
The act of 1871 under which the
city contended it did not have to
pay for improvements since that year
provides that no compensation shall
be made or allowed to any person or
persons for houses or other buildings
erected or built on any of the AVE.
nues, streets, lanes or alleys in the
city, from and after the time the
streets shall have been designated
by commissioners.
Judge McCarrell first rules that if
the Legislature had intended to re-
fes' to existing streets, of which
Front street was one, the language of
the act would have shown it, the
court implying that the law means
no compensation should be allowed
for buildings erected in streets laid
out after 1871. In part, on this point,
Judge McCarrell says: THE act
clearly relates only to such lands as