In Re Acquisition of Land for Recreational Purposes

The crucial question here is whether the circuit judge erred in refusing to allow the land-owners (appellants) to introduce testimony before the jury in condemnation proceedings, to show that the city was already the owner of other lands in the same locality equally suitable for the public purpose intended (in this case, for recreational purposes, to establish a public playground).

In this case, the question of necessity for taking the lands sought to be condemned is solely a question of fact to be submitted to and determined by the jury. The Constitution (article 13, § 2 [1908]) so provides,…