Gunnison news-champion. [volume] (Gunnison, Colo.) 1905-1932, 1923-03-23

-
one, . principal business styoot Of tie
city. Tomichi avenue, and IL interest
ing street, Pine street. cannot help
but observe that Il has two entrances,
one on the south ON Tomicd and one
on the north end Of tie west nide from
Pine street, very necessary things, in
my opinion, for the uses contemplated
by the county. It has been testified
to here, and It Is plain TO the ordinary
observer, that it Is in Close proximity
10 the sheds Of the county and Il also
appears that il Is in close proximity to
other garages and machine shops.
These matters are all to be taken into
consideration by the county purchasing
il.
The Court is of the opinion therefore
that the county has acquired some very
valuable, adequate, and you might say
in the language of the case Of Avery
vs. Job: Adequate and suitable to
the purposes Of the county"
I know that considerable stress has
been laid on the sale Of other property
and the price paid for the property is
excessive. compared to the price paid
for other property. I want to say to
counsel here, that the price Of other
property is helpful to the Court, I
mean the sale price, and it Is admissi-
BILE under all the rules Of evidence in
determining the market value, but
there are conditions under which It is
helpful and under which It is admissi-
ole and these are the circumstances
and conditions under which other sales
were made. The real test of the value
Of property is such q price AS one who
is under no obligation to sell is willing
to take for the property, and one who
is under no obligations to buy, is will
ing to pay for the property. Now
while other sales were spoken of, can
not remember any testimony which
embraces those circumstances which /
have indicated as being the true critic
ria Of the value of the property. do not
thing they were. The Court was not
advised as to all the conditions under
which the sales were made. Even then
they are only aids to the Court, and SO
l have to make up my mind from all
the testimony.
Some criticism has been INDUCED in
on the part of counsel as to the interest
Of the witnesses. This criticism may
be justified SO far as that is concerned,
If INDUCED in by counsel for both
sides. 1t is unfortunate, of course,
that we cannot always get evidence
that is free from feeling, but that is
the weakest of human institutions and
II is the weakness, of course, in our
evidencial system of courts. So the
Court here occupies the position of
juror. He has to take all matters
into consideration as a juror would
consider them; the appearance of the
witnesses on the stand, their interest
or want Of interest in the result Of the
suit, their conduct, their knowledge
and the various things that a juror is
presumed to consider and take into
consideration in weighing the evidence
of witnesses. There we're good ma
ny on both sides-I think there were
possibly witnesses on both sides who
had feeling. Unfortunately it is a
case in which people are likely to have
interest and feeling, but we have to lay
that all aside.
Mr.. Clark and Mr.. Abel Seem to
have constructed most of the buildings
In this town for years. From the
standpoint of qualification, they are
undoubtedly good. Mr.. Palmer and
Mr.. s. J. Miller impressed the Court
as good men and men Of good judg-
ment. Witnesses for the plaintiff /
believe to have been honest; / believe
some of them were entirely too low in
their opinion Of the value of this pro-
perty. No one could have q higher
consideration for another than have
for Mr.. Curtis, yet MIR. Curtis did not
want to put value on this property.
He felt that he was not qualified, said
SO, and permitted him to give his
opinion because ! wanted to give a
wide range to both sides in determin-
ing the value Of this property.
Now, as said while ago, am in
ciined to think that this property
should have been bought for a little
less money; how much less, l am not
exactly prepared to say and will not
say, but II say for instance, the price
to be paid is $500. too much or $1,000,
too much, will not then be invading
the province of the administrative Off
GERS? Have ! the right to do SO?
l believe if their conduct had been
shown to be reprehensible and they are
to pay much more for this property
than they should, it should not be per-
mitted, but / do not believe that l
should give them no range for the ex-
ercise Of their judgment. No one,
believe, has a stronger feeling against
extravaganza in public officials than L.
No one has q higher regard for the
duties Of q public official in this capac-
ity than have, but l am not an arbi-
TRAITOR and, as is observed by the New
York case which quoted, am only to
act II believe they have been guilty
Of misconduct, or are guilty Of doing
something to occasion waste to this
county unnecessarily, or their conduct
is unconscionable. They may have
been little too liberal; do not be-
lieve they were guilty, however, of any
wrong conduct or violation of law that
would warrant me as Court in inter-
fering and saying that l will not per-
NIT this purchase to be made, and SO
believing, the injunction is denied, the
demurrer to the second and third