WEST EOXBURY PARK. 95 



be mistaken, for I shall never consent to the reduction 

 of one dollai' from the face of the verdict, nor abate one 

 cent from the interest. 



Now, if your commission, representing- the city gov- 

 ernment, did not intend to abide by the verdict rendered 

 in my case, why did they have the hardihood to force 

 me to all the discomforts of the sidt in court? They 

 have acquired no such privilege over me. Surely 1 

 have done nothing in the progiTss of the trial to gain 

 undue advantage, which I might have been justilied in 

 doing if I had been keenly alive to such methods, but 

 all my witnesses were of the highest respectability, 

 capable, conscientious and judicious, besides being tax- 

 payers. Is it therefoie honorable, on the part of either 

 department of the city government, Hi'st to force me 

 under the harrows and then to do their utmost to keep 

 me there? 



Your plea for trying to set aside the verdict and pe- 

 tition for a new trial seems to be based upon the fact 

 that IN^cwstead was entered with other claims against 

 the city, it having been seized the year befoj-e, and no 

 action filed. What could be moi-e natural when other 

 and larger claims were pending? No claim of mine is 

 stronger or more legitimate. 



Do the })ark commissioners owe me for Newstead or 

 not? Does the city government, or any of its officials, 

 desire to i-ol) me of this property, or take advantage of 

 a weak and dishonest technicality of law and thus de- 

 prive me of 476,360 feet of land at 18 3-4 cents, or 

 189,317.50 when they also owe me for other large 

 claims? 



The jui-y has now rendered their valuation for this 



