82 HISTORY OF THE 



which evidence was entirely ignored and disregarded in 

 making up the verdict, which Ijeing so clearly against 

 the testimony given, shonld have been set aside at once 

 and a new trial granted. 



If it was the result of ignorance or obstinacy, onr 

 good citizen shonld not be so wronged by submitting 

 to it, which view of the case I tind pointedly confii'med 

 in the Saturday Ecenuiy Gazette., as the following ex- 

 tracts will show: 



Injustice. 



To the Editors of the Gazette'. — The verdict of the 

 jury in the suit of Francis A. Peters against the city of 

 Boston, for damages caused to his estate on Forest Hill 

 street by the taking of a portion of his land by the park 

 commissioners, was a great sni'prise to all who listened 

 to the evidence, the City Solicitor himself included. 



Seldom has such an array of land-owners, improvers, 

 and occupants of estates in the immediate vicinity, be- 

 side the most competent and ex])erienced experts, testi- 

 fied in any case; and though the petitionci''s claim was 

 most thoroughly presented and ably argued to the jury 

 by Messrs. Richard Gluey and Sigourney Butlei-, the 

 result of the trial and the small veidict rendered can 

 only be accounted for on the ground that the average 

 juryman considers land adapted to the raising of pota- 

 toes, strawberries and garden sauce, as of higher value 

 than land Avhose natural beauty consists of hill, dale, 

 rocks and trees, many of which are the handsome result 

 of a century's growth. 



Fortunately for the great public, who are to enjoy 



