Appeal of Brooks' & Joseph's

By the Court, Sawyer, J.: In this case the record presents the same questions which were determined in Piper's Appeal, ante, 530, and the principles stated in the opinion in that case, so far as they are applicable, must control this. In this case the principal ground of complaint is, that the amount allowed for damages for the twenty-nine feet some inches taken from appellants’ lots to be added to the width of the street is too small, and [561]the strain of the testimony and argument bears most strongly upon this question. The principles stated in Piper’s Appeal apply as well to this precise question as to the amount of benefits, absolute and relative, and need not be repeated. Aside from the report of the Commissioners, there is a wide difference in the opinions of the witnesses as to the value of the property and the amount of damages sustained. Among witnesses who have long been in business connected with the sale and renting of real estate in San Francisco, and who profess to be acquainted with the value of such property, the estimates of the value of the strip taken from the lot on the corner of Pacific and Kearny streets varies from six thousand five hundred dollars to thirty-three thousand dollars. But one of the numerous witnesses, however, besides the appellants themselves, place it so high as eighteen thousand dollars, and the range of the evidence of appellants’ witnesses is considerably below that sum. There is a wide discrepancy in the testimony of the same witnesses of appellants as to the relative value of the strip taken from two adjacent lots. As, for instance, Carter, who puts the value of the strip taken from the corner lot at the highest figure of any witness not a party to the appeal, except one, estimates it at eighteen thousand seven hundred fifty-five dollars, and the value of the strip taken from the next lot on the north at two thousand one hundred seventy-five dollars; while Blood, a witness of appellants, estimates the same damages at thirteen thousand seven hundred fifty dollars for the first named lot, and five thousand dollars for the second ; and Middleton, another of appellants’ witnesses, estimates the damages to the first lot at twelve thousand dollars, and to the second, at two thousand seven hundred dollars. Thus, with respect to the two strips of land fronting on Kearny street taken from adjacent lots, Carter makes the second about one ninth the value of the other; Middleton not quite one fourth; and Blood between one third and one half. But we do not propose to analyze or discuss the testimony at length. These circumstances are only alluded [562]