¶1Mr. Maurice Friedman, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
¶2Mr. Vernon E. West, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Richmond B. Keech, Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia, and Stanley DeNeale, *16Assistant Corporation Counsel, District of Columbia, both of Washington, D. C, were on the brief, for appellees.
¶3Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
¶5In this case the Commissioners of the District of Columbia brought an action in the District Court to condemn a small piece of land belonging to appellant for the purpose of widening an alley and providing space for the turning of vehicular traffic at a corner of the alley. Two points are made by appellant on this appeal, both of which are without merit.
¶6The first is that the applicable statute governing the opening, extending, widening and straightening of alleys in the District1 requires, in order to authorize the Commissioners to act, that each of the three conditions specified therein must exist. To interpret the statute as appellant contends would result in an absurdity and, as it is our duty to avoid such a result,2 the contention must be rejected.
¶7She then urges that there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court — and the requirement of the statute — that the public interests require such an opening, extension, widening, or straightening of an alley. We conclude, on the contrary, that there is sufficient evidence. The language of the statute, upon this point, is: “ … when the commissioners deem that the public interests require such opening, extension, widening, or straightening … ”; and there is nothing in the record to suggest that their discretion, in this respect, was arbitrarily exercised.
¶8Affirmed.