102 HISTORY or THE 



expected from the city of Boston, ns I have endeavored 

 to show by the foregoing pages of this narrative; but 

 on the other hand, the city government has done all 

 that it possibly eoiild, to block the way of settlement. 

 After seizing my estates, I have been dragged into 

 court; unaccountable and unjust testimony was given 

 against intelligent and judicious experts, and finally the 

 verdict was rendered; the result being about 40 1-4 

 per cent, of my claims, or about $250,000 less than I 

 would have accepted for this property, at private sale. 



After the testimony had been admitted on both sides, 

 as to the A^alue per foot of the N^ew stead land, without 

 any objections being raised at the outset, and as the jury 

 was about to i-etire, the question was raised by the 

 city solicitor about the rate of interest, on the declara- 

 tion of the verdict. He then for the first time raised the 

 point of jurisdiction, and requested that the Newstead 

 estate be thrown out of the verdict; but as the record 

 did not show any reason for such a proceeding, the 

 Supreme Court sustained the verdict as will be seen by 

 the resciipt, sent down May 9th, 1887. To wit: 



Samuel E. Sawyer vs. City of Boston. 



Petition for the assessment by a jury of the damages 

 to the petitioner, by the taking of land by the board of 

 park commissioners. The case was tried in the Superi- 

 or Court, and the jury returned a verdict for the peti- 

 tioner in the sum of |265,091.07 and the i-espondent 

 alleged exceptions to the rulings of the court. The ex- 

 ceptions have now been overruled, the rescript being as 

 follows : The court is not shown to have misused its 

 discretion in admitting or rejecting evidence. The 



