The opinion
BbowN, J\,
dissenting: I am of opinion that the benefits permitted to be considered by the jury as inuring to plaintiff’s land are entirely too remote and speculative. His land is occupied by the plaintiff as a residence and is situated some three-fourths- of a mile beyond the boundaries of Concord and is on two public roads. The third road that has been cut through it takes six acres of it. The possibility of the plaintiff being able to cut up his property and sell it. off in town lots is problematical and entirely too remote to be considered.
Again, I think the benefits that should be considered are those which naturally accrue to the land in the condition it is in and the uses to which the owner puts it. I don’t think the *154 plaintiff should be compelled to sell his home in order to endeavor to realize these highly uncertain profits from sale of town lots.
Me. Justice Walker concurs in this opinion.