|
apply if that power line were across the
street from you, not on your property or
somewhere else.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding);
Delegate Weidenieyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Then it
would be a question of whether your prop-
erty were actually damaged or not.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Is there any
way telling where the line falls between
the power line which is 150 yards away and
the bridge which you are talking about
which is across the street?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Weidenieyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I would
say those are all questions of fact. One in-
stallation where they did not take your
property, might be damaging, and another
one might not.
All of those matters are a question of
fact the same as the value is a question of
fact when there is an actual taking.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: May I then
ask what is the situation under which you
would under your amendment allow com-
pensation to a person if this is not done
for public purposes, but if a private person
goes across the street and builds something
which is just as objectionable, you would
have no right to recover from the private
person; so this is done for the public good,
the person would be entitled to a recovery
but if it is done for a private gain you
could not recover?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Weidenieyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: In that
area, if damages were suffered by the public
generally, that is one thing, but what this
is intended to cover is the case where the
individual suffers that damage over and
above that suffered by the public.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: It is the
peculiar damage to the individual which we
intend to cover.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: The general
public is not intended to exclude all the
people in the immediate vicinity of the
work which is causing the problem, is it?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I did not
get your question.
|
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Everybody
who is within sight of something which ob-
structs the view, for example, is in exactly
the same position. They are the individuals
involved.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Weidenieyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Let me
read the following: "compensation is re-
quired not only where there is an injury
which would become actionable in common
law, but also in all cases where it appears
that there has been some physical disturb-
ance of a right either public or private
which an owner of a parcel of land enjoys
in connection with its property and which
gives it an additional value and by reason
of such disturbance he has sustained a
special damage in excess of that sustained
to the public generally."
I was reading from Nichols on eminent
domain.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: This was
never in the law of Maryland.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Weidenieyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: No, it
was instituted in the law in 1870.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: I rise to a point
of order.
We are being questioned about damages.
I do not think that is what this subject is
about. I understand Delegate Gilchrist has
an amendment concerning damages in our
proposal. I would suggest we hold that until
we get to that amendment.
I do not think this is what Delegate
Weidenieyer is talking about.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Damages are
in the minority report.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: It is in
the language of the majority report and
the minority report. I did not come here to
elaborate on the majority report. I did not
come here prepared to do that. I came here
to give you what ought to be added to the
majority report.
|
