The 4th Ward assessment roll received in evidence shows substantial variations in the value of properties on Elizabeth avenue, and inspection of the line of improvement about a mile in length shows greater traffic and better building and values toward Seventh street than opposite and below appellant’s lot. The intersection of Elizabeth avenue and High street, a few feet West of Seventh street, is a business center for that part of the City, and values and traffic are materially greater in that vicinity than below Third street. It is manifest that business houses dependent upon traffic for their business are more benefited by a paving improvement than vacant lots at a distance where there is less traffic.

It is well settled in New York that the relative value of lots and the buildings upon them must be considered in determining the benefits accruing from a paving improvement (Donavan v. Oswego, 39 Misc. 291, and cases therein cited); and in State v. Rahway (39 N. J. L. 646; affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals in 11 Vr. 615) a greater assessment upon lots nearer a business center was approved in a grading, curbing and guttering improvement.

The statute provides that “all assessments ... levied for any local improvement shall in each case be as near as may be in proportion to the peculiar benefit, advantage or increase in value which the respective lots and parcels of land and real estate shall be deemed to receive by reason of the improvement.”

Under the circumstances existing in the case at bar, there being, as I find, a difference in benefit along the line of the improvement resulting from location and value, these elements should have been considered by the Commission and such weight given them as in the judgment of the Commissioners they should receive.

In reassessing appellant’s lot I suggest a different ratio of concessions for short lots. The concessions adopted by the Commissioners are one-half the concessions allowed by the Newark, or Hoffman rule, in valuing short lots in regular assessments. As evidenced by the result reached in the assessment appealed from, the concessions are inadequate, and I see no reason why the full concessions established by the Newark rule should not be adopted.

It is not easy to formulate a rule that will do justice in all cases in assessing irregular shaped lots, but I think a fair result would be reached in the case at bar by deducting from the frontage assessment of $3,087.00 a concession of 25% ($771.00) for the frontage and probable future paving assessment on First avenue; a further concession at the rates given by the Newark Rule for that portion of the lot under 100 feet in depth (20%—$441.00), less the added value under the same rule for that portion over 100 feet in length (7%—$61.74) net $379.26; total net $1,936.74; less such further concession for less than average benefit received by appellant’s lot as in the judgment of the Commissioners should be allowed by reason of inferior location, value and improvements.

As appellant’s lot is not assessed for paving Liberty Square, no concession should be made for frontage on Liberty Square.

For the reasons given, the assessment appealed from should be set aside as to appellant’s lot.

Inexcusable delay in presenting a check for payment is held to discharge an indorser from liability thereon if the check is not paid, whether he is in fact injured or not, in the West Virginia case of Nuzum v. Sheppard, 104 S. E. 587, annotated in 11 A.L.R. 1024.