1. There was no evidence to authorize the jury’s verdict. The witness for the condemnor testified that in his opinion the value of the land taken was $1,402.20 аnd that there was no consequential damage to the remaining property. The only witness who testified in behalf of the condemnee testifiеd that the market value of the entire tract before the taking was $16,000 and that the value of the entire tract after the taking was $7,500. This is not the measure of damage in such a case under the law. The measure of damage is the value of the land taken and the consequential damage, if any, to the remainder of the land. This legal damage, including all elements, cannоt be computed from the condemnee’s witness’ testimony. Under the evidеnce the damage of $4,200, fixed by the jury, is excessive and unauthorized.
2. Special grounds 4, 5 and 6 except to charges of the court which arе substantially the same in meaning, though different in language, so one ruling will suffice for all three grounds. The judge charged the jury that in estimating the value of the agricultural land being taken they could consider all other legitimate purposes for which the property could be used. There was no evidence that the land involved could be used for any purpose оther than farm purposes and no evidence from which the jury could infer that there was any reasonable probability that the land could be used for any other than farming purposes.
Central Ga. Power Co. v. Cornwell,
3. Grounds 7 and 8 of the amended motion complain of the admission of testimony relating to the gеneral harmful effect of ditches on or near farm property, some deep and narrow, some not very deep but wide. In passing on the admissibility of this testimony it is necessary to look at the evidence as а whole. The condemnor offered two witnesses who testified *100 that the сondemnation caused no consequential damages to the rest of the condemnee’s farm. One of these witnesses stated on cross-examination that the State Highway Department had made studies to find оut whether right of way ditches caused adjacent fields to dry out and be less productive, but the studies were inconclusive. TThe other witness on cross-examination testified over objection (Ground 7) that ditches along thе highway right of way would dry the cultivated land. This witness later answered a hypothetical question, stating that such a twelve-inch ditch would affect the productivity of the condemnee’s property. Then he stated that he wаs “no expert” on a five-foot ditch, but on further questioning (ground 8) stated that hе had previously said that he had seen, farms that he thought it had affectеd pretty bad. Thereafter a witness for the condemnee, who was fаrming the land in question, gave testimony to the effect that the right of way ditches caused the condemnee’s land to dry out and the crops not tо come up, and that this affected the value of the remaining land.
It аppears that the testimony complained of was offered tо impeach the witness and discredit his opinion that there were no consequential damages to the condemnee’s land. It was within the discretion of the trial judge to admit such testimony on cross-examination.
Code
§ 38-1705;
Mitchell, v. State, 71
Ga. 128, 129;
Lane Drug Stores v. Brooks,
The court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment reversed.