Q. "From what corner? A. "Corner of 117 and Perry avenue. Q. "How far is that from the north end of the block? Q. "How far is that from the south end of the block? A. “I can't tell you offhand. Perhaps it may be 500 feet, that is, from the north to the south,-500 or 600. I can't be certain, Mr. Glos. Q. "Do you know if there are any improvements on lot 63, in block 5? A. "Yes, I think there are. Q. “Did you ever measure the distance from the south end of the block to the north end? A. "We had it surveyed-I had it surveyed. Q. "You don't know the dimensions of any of these lots? A. "Each lot is 25 feet front. Q. "That comprises two blocks from north to south,— from One Hundred and Fifteenth to One Hundred and Seventeenth street, does it? A. "Subdivided it is one block, block 6, but they are in two street blocks. There is no street cut through. One Hundred and Seventeenth street stops at the church there. It does not go through. Q"These dimensions you have testified to here are the frontage of two different blocks? A. "Yes, about that. 2. "Is that blocks 4 and 5 or blocks 5 and 6? A. "That is block 6. Lots 63 and 64 are in block 5. The school house and Holland Church are in block 6. Q. "Is block 6 north or south of block 5? Is it east or west? A. "It is east of block 5. Q. "Do you know in what quarter section this property is located that you have testified to? A. "I do. It is the south-east quarter of section 21. Q. "Did Field subdivide the whole south-east quarter? Q. "What part of the south-east quarter did Field. subdivide? A. "To explain that I will say the west forty-nine acres of the south-east quarter of section 21 was originally subdivided as Allen's subdivision, into blocks, and they are blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Allen's, and that is what is known as Walter H. Field's addition to Pullman that is subdivided into lots. The balance left there, 7, 8 and 9, were James R. Mann's addition to Pullman. That is between One Hundred and Eighteenth and One Hundred and Nineteenth. Q. "In what part of the block is the alley you have testified to? Is that the center or north end? A. "The north part of the alley is next to lot 64,—the one that he owns." When Scanlan's entire testimony, including his crossexamination, is considered, there is no room for doubt that his answer as transcribed is a clerical error. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the court in finding that appellee was in possession of the premises described in the bill when this tax title was obtained and also when this suit was commenced. Appellant has assigned error upon the decree adjudging that he pay costs to the amount of $52, but that point is not argued in the brief. The only suggestion made upon this question is, that it was error to adjudge costs against appellant because appellee was not entitled to the relief prayed for in his bill. The decree of the circuit court of Cook county will be affirmed. Decree affirmed. THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, Appellant, vs. EMMA B. CORNEAU et al. Appellees. Opinion filed December 17, 1912—Rehearing denied Feb. 5, 1913. 1. EMINENT DOMAIN-what is not proper cross-examination of expert. Where a witness in a proceeding to condemn a tract of land underlaid with stone has qualified as an expert concerning the stone trade, he may be asked, on cross-examination, any question which will test his learning and accuracy or which will show the reasonableness or unreasonableness of his opinion, but it is improper to allow a hypothetical question which puts before the jury. supposed facts concerning the sales and leases of property not similar in locality or character to the land sought to be condemned and which the defendant would have no right to prove. 2. SAME a fact not pertinent to issue cannot be assumed in a hypothetical question. A fact which is not pertinent to the question being tried, and which the law will not permit to be proved as having any tendency to create or justify an opinion, cannot be assumed in a hypothetical question. (West Chicago Street Railway Co. v. Fishman, 169 Ill. 196, distinguished.) 3. SAME-when evidence of what defendants bid for property is not competent. If the owner of land condemned has purchased the property so recently that its cost will afford an indication of its present value either party may prove the price paid, and the same might be true if the sale were a public judicial sale which was not forced or compulsory; but it is not competent to allow the defendants to show that three and one-half years before the trial they bid in the property at $500 per acre at a partition sale, where they were already the owners in common of an 80/81 interest therein and their bid was the only one made. 4. SAME—when petitioner is entitled to instruction that railroad right of way cannot be condemned for private purposes. In a proceeding by a sanitary district to condemn a tract of land to be used for a channel, where it is claimed by the defendants that the greatest value of the land is for a stone quarry, although it has no shipping facilities and does not adjoin any railroad, the nearest railroad line being over a mile distant, the petitioner is entitled to an instruction stating that the right of way for a railroad to the land could not be condemned for private purposes. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. RICHARD S. TUTHILL, Judge, presiding. JOHN C. WILLIAMS, P. C. HALEY, and JAMES S. HANDY, for appellant. COBURN & BENTLEY, for appellees. Mr. JUSTICE CARTWRIGHT delivered the opinion of the court: The Sanitary District of Chicago, appellant, filed its petition in the circuit court of Cook county to ascertain the compensation to be paid to Emma B. Corneau, David E. Corneau and Florence B. Paulson for 35.77 acres of land in the Sag valley, to be used for a channel connecting the Calumet river with the main channel of the sanitary district at the Sag. The Sag valley is approximately half a mile wide, and the Calumet feeder, or Sag feeder, extending from the Illinois and Michigan canal at the Sag to the Calumet, runs through the center of the valley. The right to use that feeder was donated by the State to the sanitary district, and the southern boundary of the tract in question is the center of the feeder. The tract is located in the valley, which is bounded on the north and south by ranges of hills. There was a trial, resulting in a verdict fixing the compensation at $500 an acre, and the court, after overruling a motion for a new trial, entered judgment on the verdict. The land is wet a large part of the year and in places is boggy. It produces coarse grass, a part of it slough grass, and has only been used for hay. The witnesses called by the appellant estimated its value at prices ranging from $60 to $100 an acre, and the appellant also proved a number of recent sales of property in the immediate vicinity at prices from $48 to $100 an acre. The sales were either of land on the hills bordering the valley, or were of tracts the greater portion of which was on the hills, where the soil was not so rich or productive as that of the valley, but the lands had the advantage of being adapted for diversified farming and raising crops, while the greater part of the land in the valley could not be used for ordinary farming purposes. These witnesses regarded the land of appellees as best adapted for a meadow as its most valuable use, and that was the use to which it had been applied. The land is underlaid with limestone, and the appellees examined several witnesses who placed values upon it as a stone quarry ranging from $500 to $1000 an acre, and three witnesses valued it at $150 to $300 per acre for the purpose of removing the black earth and hauling or shipping it away and selling it. The bed of stone is covered with earth varying in depth at different places but averaging 8.2 feet. The surface consists first of black earth from one to two feet deep and of the average depth of 1.2 feet. Underneath that there is a layer of soft yellow clay mixed with sand, which gradually turns to a blue clay as it nears the stone. The witnesses described two qualities of stone in that region, the one called "tame stone," which could be cut or dressed for building purposes, and the other as "wild. stone," which was of a flinty nature and a bluish color and which could not be so used, and there was some difference of opinion between witnesses as to the quality of the stone on this land. The market for stone is in Chicago, and the land is about sixteen miles from the court house by an air line and twenty-three and one-half miles by the nearest traveled roadway. Land is of no value as a quarry without shipping facilities, and this land is one and seven-tenths miles from the Chicago and Alton and the Chicago and Joliet Electric railways west of it, and the nearest railroad east of it is the Wabash, five and seven-tenths miles distant. The theory upon which values were based by the witnesses for appellees was that a railroad could be built to the nearest railroad connection and the surface be removed from the stone and the rock quarried and shipped, and that such a railroad could be built by obtaining consent of the owners of the property over which it would run or organiz |