Appeal from the County Court, City and County of San Francisco.

The Legislature passed an Act (See Laws 1864, p. 347,) giving power to the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco to determine by order to lay out, open, extend, widen, or straighten any street in said city, and that it will be necessary to take private lands for that purpose. Acting under the provisions of said law, the Board on the 19th of September, 1864, by order, determined to widen Kearny street to the width of seventy-five feet, instead of its then width of forty-five feet five inches. Such proceedings were thereafter taken by said Board that the County Court acquired jurisdiction and appointed three freeholders Commissioners of appraisal and assessment. The Commissioners proceeded to view the premises, and examined witnesses, and made a report of their appraisal and assessment to the County Court. By this report several lots belonging to Piper, the appellant, were assessed for benefits received by widening the street. None of appellant’s property was taken, as his lots were on the side of Kearny street not disturbed, or on cross streets. The County Court assigned the 12th day of June, 1866, for hearing objections to the confirmation of the report, and on said day said Piper filed his objections, which were as follows:

“William A. Piper, by his attorney, comes and objects to the confirmation of the report of the Commissioners appointed to assess the damages for the widening of Kearny street, and avers that he is the owner of the following lots, to wit:

“A lot on the southeast corner of Kearny and Merchant streets, fronting thirty-nine and one half feet on Kearny street and sixty-eight and nine twelfths feet on Merchant street.

“A lot on the southeast corner of Third and Tehama streets, fronting thirty feet on Third street and eighty feet on Tehama street.

“A lot on the northeast corner of Third and Clementina streets; and for grounds of objection to said report he alleges and sets forth the following, to wit:

“ 1, That the assessment of damages and benefits to result from said improvement, as made by said Commissioners, is unjust, unequal, and not in any degree uniform.

“ 2. That in assessing the benefits the said Commissioners have assessed some lots, and particularly those of this objector, far beyond the benefits which said lots will receive from said improvements, and have assessed other lots much below the proper sums.

“ 3. That in assessing the benefits, there is included in said assessments a large amount of property not situate upon, or contiguous to, ICearny street, and which will not be directly benefited by said improvement, nor otherwise benefited, than as the whole mass of property in the vicinity of Kearny street is benefited.

“4. That under the statute, in that behalf provided, no property can be lawfully assessed for benefits to be received from said improvement, except that fronting on Kearny street; whereas it appears from said report that a large amount of property situate on Third street, Bush, Sutter, and other cross streets, has been assessed.”

Under these general objections he then specified the particulars wherein he claimed the assessment was unequal, etc.

The attorney for the city and county filed a replication to the objections, and thereafter the County Court proceeded to hear the objections of the contestant, and testimony-was introduced by both parties. The County Court overruled the .objection of the contestant and confirmed the report of the Commissioners.

The property taken was twenty-nine and seven twelfths feet on the west side of Kearny, from Broadway to Market, and a corner off Third and Market. The assessment was made on all property from Broadway to Market, and on the streets crossing Kearny to a depth of two hundred and seventy-five feet from the old lines of Kearny street, and on the lots fronting on Third street, and on those fronting on Market street, for two hundred and seventy-five feet on each side of Third. On the cross streets, the rate of assessment diminished foot by foot as the distance from Kearny increased. On some of the principal cross streets this rate or scale, commenced at eleven dollars per front foot; on others, when the grade was steep or the street narrow, and consequently the benefit less, this scale of eleven dollars was diminished in proportion, in some cases one third, in others one half, etc.

The contestant appealed from the judgment of the County Court.

A more general statement of the facts connected with the widening of Kearny street will be found, in the case of the Appeal of the North Beach and Mission Bailroad Company, ante, 499.

The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.