The City Balked at the Price and Walked Away From the Jury

The suit of the city against Ivey and wife, to appropriate property for the proposed street rearrangement, came to an unexpected turn in the superior court yesterday. The case was tried before Judge Humes and the evidence had been submitted, when Corporation Counsel Scott moved for a dismissal without prejudice. The jury was recalled, after it had deliberated about fifteen minutes, and the action was dismissed.

The action had been in the superior court since December 1, when the complaint was filed under direction of the city council. It was designated as the improvement to connect Powell Street, Kentucky Street and Prospect Street, and an ordinance for the case had been passed last October, a previous action under a joint resolution having been dismissed without prejudice. At the trial yesterday the city undertook to show that the amount of compensation for the property condemned did not exceed a fair value, and introduced as witnesses J. W. Clise, A. B. Boulter, F. P. Hunter and George F. Cotterill. On the other hand the defense called G. L. Crawford, J. P. Jacobsen, C. A. McKenzie, G. F. Lawler and E. A. Turner, all of them experienced in real estate values, and they testified practically that the lot sought to be condemned was worth $2,500, and that the improvement would not be of benefit to the property.

In instructing the jury Judge Humes said that the council was the tribunal to determine the question of the public policy of the improvement, and that the question to be decided by the jury was a matter of damages. The jury was as follows: J. F. Byrne, Thomas A. Marshall, J. A. Miller, J. B. Wilson, R. G. Melius, J. W. Bently, Charles Pike, F. P. Wentworth, J. J. Hartley, Hiram Davis, Charles Allen and A. T. Beide.

The corporation counsel, after the evidence was all in, and after the argument of the question on the measure of damages and the retirement of the jury, felt that the damages would be excessive in his opinion, and before the jury returned into court with its verdict he asked to dismiss the case, which the court readily did. Mr. Scott was of the opinion that damages exceeding a just figure were more than the city should pay for the improvement, and in this opinion he was supported by members of the city council. He felt that under the circumstances a duty devolved upon him to prevent a judgment embarrassing the case, and therefore assumed the responsibility to dismiss the action.

It is understood that the sentiment of the jury was that the verdict should not have been less than $2,000, and probably $2,500.