| OCR Text |
Show would be the very best Jurymen wo could get." The Jurymen selected to hear the evidence in the case, are: Fred L. Sanborn. G. II. Butler, William 11. Davis, Moroni Skccn. Clarence K. Story, Thomas W. PeM;, Peter M. Folkruan and Henry Huseman. E. F. Bratz and Carl Rasroussen, realestatc dealers, testified this afternoon after-noon that Mr. Sorcnson'e property on Twenty-fifth street and Hudson avenue ave-nue is worth, without improvements. $1,000 per froutopt. Mr. Sorouson testified that the rebuilding of the brick wall" torn down for the opening of Hudson avenue cost him $500, and i that the replacing of the water and sewer pipes cost him $125. It is thought that the case will bo concluded this evening. NEW JURY IN S0RENSON CASE In the civil division of the district court this morning Judge T. D. Lewis, pitting for Judge Howell, excused all Jurymen not eninaneled to try the case of Ogden ys. Carl Screnson, until un-til next Monday morning, which Indicates Indi-cates that Judje Lewis will not try. more than tho case at bar this week. 1 The case of Ogden against Cail Sor-enson Sor-enson for the condemnation of certain cer-tain property used In tho opening of Hudson avenue is the Becond of Its kind tried by Judge Lewis. It being stated that there will likely be two other filmllax cases to be heard. At the beginning of the trial this morning the attorney for the defendant defend-ant confessed the necessity of opening open-ing the avenue and that the city had the right, under the law, to condemn the defendant's property for that pur pose, tho amount of ground taken was agreed by the parties to be 3:05 front feet, situated on th corner of Hudson Hud-son avenue and Twenty-fifth street Tblu resolves tho Ibfucb to be heard oy tho Jury purely to the question of the value of the ground, and the property prop-erty upon the ground that was displaced dis-placed In the transaction. In ihls answer, the defendant claims that the property la worth $1,000 per front foot, the west wall of the structure struc-ture on tho ground tmit was torn down and rebuilt is valued by the defendant de-fendant at $1,200, the value of the rental on the premises, impeded three month, is considered to bo worth $C0 per month and tho eviction from the use of the building is -alued at $1S0. Aside from these amounts, the defendant asks judfiocnt for the costs of the suit. At the outset It was stipulated by the attorneys that the jurors who tried the case of the city against Ellen El-len J. Stei ens. In which judgment wa.s rendered last week, should bo excused from service in the present controversy. contro-versy. The court rather demurred to excusing these Juryitcn on the grounds that, in the ordmon of the court, they would be better jurymen In the present cas-e than would those jurymen who have heard nothing of the question of values in the viclnity of the property sought to 1? condemned. condemn-ed. The court stated, however, that. Inasmuch as the attorneys had stipulated stipu-lated that the jurymen be excused, the order would be made. "I cannot see for the. life of me. though" said .Tud?e Iewis. "'why these eigbt jurors should be excused from service on this case. They are not disqualified from acting in this cose and it seems to me that they -i mmm mil lull in immmbiii in |
