"SUBMITTED
BY PLAINTIFFS.
"1.
Was R. S. Andrews on or about the first day of August, 1877
and at the time of the injuries complained of herein
occurred, the owner of lots numbered 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and
21, in block numbered 23, in L. C. Challiss's addition to
the city of Atchison, in Atchison county, Kansas, and has he
and his heirs or estate since his death, continued to own
said property since that time? A. Yes.
"2.
Has R. S. Andrews died since the beginning of this action? A.
Yes.
"3.
Are L. A. Andrews and B. F. Hudson the duly appointed
qualified and acting administrators of the estate of said R
S. Andrews, deceased, and has this action been revived, and
have they taken his place as plaintiffs in this action? A.
Yes.
"4.
Was there an alley regularly laid out and dedicated to the
use of the public immediately south of and running along the
south ends of above-described lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and
21, in block 23, in said L. C. Challiss's addition to
said city of Atchison, Atchison county, Kansas, before and up
to and on or about August 1, 1877? A. Yes.
"5.
Was said alley south and adjoining said property and lots
open for public use and the use of adjoining lot-owners,
previous and up to the time that defendant laid down and
constructed its railroad track thereon? A. Yes.
"6.
Did the defendant on or about the 1st of August, 1877,
construct a railroad track in said alley immediately south of
and running along the south ends of plaintiff's lots and
real estate, above described, and fully described in the
petition herein, in such manner as to permanently obstruct
said alley? A. Yes.
"7.
What was the fair market value of the said property and real
estate of said R. S. Andrews, now deceased, on or about
August 1, 1877, just before said track was laid down in said
alley, and before said alley was obstructed? A. $ 8,000.
"8.
What was the fair market value of the said property and real
estate then so owned by R. S. Andrews on or about August 1,
1877, with the said alley permanently obstructed, and just
after the obstruction was placed therein by defendant? A. $
6,000.
"9.
Was the said property and real estate then so owned by R. S.
Andrews depreciated in value by reason of the permanent
obstruction of said alley immediately south of and running
along the south end thereof by defendant, and if so, in what
amount? A. $ 2,000.
"10.
What is the interest on the sum above named from the date of
such obstruction of said alley, to wit, about August 1, 1877,
till now, at the rate of seven per cent. per annum? A. $
1,479.50.
"11.
If said property was worth less after said track was laid
down in said alley than it was before, was such depreciation
the result of the improper construction of said track in said
alley? A. Yes."
"SUBMITTED
BY DEFENDANT.
"1.
Was said track laid down and constructed in said alley on
August 1, 1877? A. Yes.
"2.
At said time did the defendant and other companies own the
south half of said block 23? A. Yes.
"3.
Just previous to August 1, 1877, was the south half of said
block used and occupied by the railroad companies for
railroad purposes? A. Yes.
"4.
In such use, had several tracks running east and west been
laid down and constructed over said south half of' said
block, parallel with and contiguous to said alley? A. Yes.
"5.
At said time and for a long time prior thereto, did one of
the defendant's railroad tracks run east and west over
said south half of said block 23, and immediately south of
and next to said alley, the full length thereof in said
block? A. Yes.
"6.
For several years just previous to August 1, 1877, did said
defendant use said track so constructed next to said alley by
running cars and trains along and over the same many times
each day and night? A. Yes.
"7.
On August 1, 1877, prior to the time said track was
constructed in said alley, what was the distance between the
south end of lots described in plaintiff's petition and
the said track of defendant, so constructed next to the south
line of said alley? A. Near of south line of alley.
"8.
Was said alley then 15 feet wide? A. Yes.
"9.
Did defendant company own the property and that said portion
of said block 23 south of and next to said alley? A. Yes.
"10.
Was said block 23 with other lots and blocks laid off and
platted in 1858 or 1859 by L. C. Challiss? A. Yes.
"11.
At said time was L. C. Challiss the owner of said ground and
land so laid off into lots and blocks? A. Yes.
"12.
Was said alley described in plaintiff's petition
dedicated to the public by the owner of the land? A. Yes.
"13.
If question 12 is answered 'yes,' then state from the
evidence who was the owner of the land at the time said alley
was dedicated to the public. A. L. C. Challiss.
"14.
If the jury find a general verdict for the plaintiff, what
amount of such verdict is awarded as compensation for the use
of the ground over which said track is located? A. None.
"15.
If the jury find a general verdict for the plaintiff, what
amount of such verdict is awarded as damages to said property
by reason of the running of cars, locomotives and trains to
and fro on said track? A. None.
"16.
Was the market value of said property depreciated by reason
of the running and operation of cars, engines and trains
along and over said tracks? A. No.
"17.
If question 16 is answered 'yes,' then state amount
of such depreciation. A. .
"18.
If question 17 is answered by fixing an amount, then state if
such amount is included in the general verdict. A. .
"19.
Has not the market value of said property gradually increased
since about the time said track was constructed to the
present time? A. Yes, as other city property.
"20.
If the jury find a general verdict for the plaintiffs, what
amount of such verdict is allowed as damages by reason of the
inability of said R. S. Andrews to drive through said alley
from Ninth to Tenth streets? A. $ 2,000.
"21.
Was the use of said alley over which said track was
constructed of any value to said property? A. Yes, as a
private roadway.
"22.
If question 21 is answered 'yes,' state what amount
of general verdict is allowed to the plaintiffs as
compensation for the use of said alley by the defendant
company. A. None.
"23.
If the owner of said property sustained any damage by reason
solely of the construction of said track in said alley, did
such damage accrue by reason of his inability to use said
alley as any person desiring to might use the same? A. No.
"24.
For what purpose had the owner of said alley used the said
alley prior to August 1, 1877? A. For private roadway.
"25.
Was not the sole use he made of it to drive to and fro over
the same? A. No.
"26.
If question 25 is answered 'no,' then state for what
other purpose he used it. A. To drive on his property.
"27.
Since about the 1st day of August, 1877, has not the market
value of said lots continued to increase in value? A. Yes, as
other city property.
"28.
Taking into consideration the capabilities and uses for which
said property was adapted, was its market value materially
affected by the construction of said track? A. .
"29.
On August 1, 1877, was said property less valuable for
residence purposes than for other purposes for which it was
adapted and might have been used? A. No.
"30.
Shortly before August 1, 1877, was the market value of said
property greater without the improvements thereon than with
such improvements? A. No.
"31.
On or before August 1, 1877, would the market value of said
six lots have been enhanced by the removal of said buildings
thereon? A. No.
"32.
If the jury find a general verdict for the plaintiffs, is
such general verdict based solely upon the theory that such
property was damaged as residence property? A. No.
"33.
If question 32 is answered 'no,' then state what
amount of general verdict is allowed as damages to said
property because of depreciation for other purposes than
residence? A. $ 2,000.
"34.
What are the several elements or sources of damages which
make up the aggregate of the general verdict, and how much of
said aggregate is made up by each of said elements or sources
of damages? A. By use of the private roadway."
