The penny press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1859-1860, 1859-10-03
Law REPORT.


The STREET RAILROAD CONTROVERSY. George
Carlisle and Others vs. The Oity Passenger Railroad
Company, The Passenger Railroad Company and
Ine Cincinnati Street railroad Company. Tho Court
having heretofore granted an order against each of
these companies, restraining them from laying down
their tracks on Fourthstreet and giving them until
be- sGw sanC bsy gispeuo
gssrea pen abd S %o of the companies ths City Passen
tentlon to lay down more than two tracks. and
claiming that these would not be an Obstruction to
The Cincinnati strcet.rallro road Company appeared
~ their attorneys, Judge Gholson and r. D. Handy.
~ ~; heaaington appeared for the other compa MES
~; Lincoln ana Judge Wright represented tho
Angmser Of afidavlts were read by Mr.. Lincoln, in
when Tnoh me aihants (propery. owners on the line)
aiegpu tnat the laying down of more than one track
use of said street. and njrc the business and deter
believed that tho one track would accommodate thss
three companies '''0
= After the matter had been briefly argued. the
Judge Storer upon the Court convenlna In the sf.
ternoSnl proceeded to dispose of the motion. The
ing on the north and south sides of Fourti.street
between Main and Vine, They aver that defendants,
srct t trae aensfh a e have @ begun to
each company claims separate right of passage:
ana that Il they are permitted to carry their design
numbered and its uses for business purposes greatly
impaired The space occupied by The street Il Srty
Ieet width and the three tracks about to be laid
for their free passage. ''''
One Of the corporations answer, setting I'M their
fgat fbga M under IN SrdnsnSo Of the unc alleging
complied With that the line Of their track has been
liked by the CIty Engineer, and that they are now
srotons grant Another Of ths Sts 1ne ie
state that 1T has taken step yet to occupy the
!, The third corporation fails to answer, but appears
oy counsel, and claims the right to singe track.
strnct n,e sheS aaSge viii be place in tho center Of the
dtion OF the street. n connection with the probabe
structure Of tho three tracks, and the probable OH
SrucIion oi the Fight OF way As the case was now
'ne court would dispose OF IT On single
The Court geierrsd 70 the amendment to the law
p whSh tns cd
OF way on railroad companies Also to the ordinance
fSsses Dy Council On the LAY Of July, 1885, prescribing
%dnn the city, and the resolutions passed By that
Dody granting the privilege TO these Companies TO
eoFstTact Fsorn ,,, street passenger roads.
~ ING council TO grant the privilege aud pre-
scribe the terms as we'll regulate the nso OF the
priyieges granted to different Companies were con-
condition that became part of the agree
wee h9 city and the companies when tho
Of the restrictions made by Council, and which that
BODY had the right TO impose, that the track should
70 eu on Tue center OF Cne street, Where. them
the track located, the construction of which was
ADMITTED to have been commencedi
IL was not denied that 1t was north of the center of
the street Leaving nearly the entire center itself un-
occupied and for tho purpose as was alleged Of al
8rdng room for another track on the south side of
S S Gould this under tho restrictions
was satisfied 1t could not; and the company claiming
strt s pryegs " mus DC confined to that pcronof tho
restriction was founded on the wisest reason: the
protection of the public and the security of The case
ment II its ordinary enjoyment to all who may be
It was said tho resolution Of the Council was no
part OF the ordinance, and had no effect on tho grant
and would Ss pro too
controlling or regulat Ing, by subsequent action the
ainerent companies who havo been the recipients of
lhe privilege, while the law of 1857, and the Ord.
nance also, reserves to the city authorities the right
to Impose such restrictions as they think proper II
We hSt 1ae Us put that such restrictions
new enterprises This principle, as we'll as the right
ola efeauity to sustain it. by the aid of its pre-
ventVe prOcg9s was recognized In the case OF More
head vs. Thc Littlo Miami Railroad Company (7 Ohio
The conclusion of this Court il that Tho Citv Pas.
senger Railway 20. must be restrained from nm fnr
ther prosecution Of the work on tho track they claim
to nave laid on the north sc Of Fourthstreet; that
Dy resolution OF tho Council there can be bnt one
track on each street and that may used in common
under provision ofthe ordinanceb other com panies
Az the defendants may settle 10 this controversy
their relatNe claims, and may in terpiead for that
purposes but 1t was necessary the city should first be
made party, which ienew ordered Andfnrther, it is
ordered that the City Passenger Company be roanired
forthwih to replace the street in The sane condi.
top II was before the work commenced aud that
said work be finished to tho approval OF the City
Civil Engineer, hereby appointed commissioner tor
that purpose with Instructions report his proceed
Mr. Headington-Isit 1t necessary we should take ND
without? :" o~ - -
Judge Storer--That will be a matter between Won
and the engineer. The injunction will be retained
I'LL further order of Court. tfII.
MIR. Headingt0n-A bond was taken In the s,lm of
$1,000 when the restraining order was granted;
have any right that is wholly inadeQ and now
ask that 1t DO increased to $4,000. = -"
Judge Storer-Well, let tho bond bo increased To
$4,000. f'Nf l,I-".I = "'' ,' Nv