New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-09-26
CIVIL COURTS.
sUPREME CoURT-Cu,nEEs-sErr 2L-Before Justice
SUTHERLAND.

SUPREME COUGT-CHUHEEs-SErr 4-Before Justice
SUTHERLAND.
DECISIONS.
In re the eert,Orari OF Henry Borman.- Certiorari
P@lp C. Trcir sgt John Ferguson.-Moon for receiver
granted, t ...E.g .fE. -.
Vhe second Avenao railroad Co sgt The Beeeser'treet
and Fulton ForTy Railroad Co. siwe agt Sane
The defendants in their charter have leave to extend
IeaIls part Of WI Oh comedies with The paints track
fhepainrs truck In The Iowery and laid their double
track Ia Pes.s, where tho plaintiffs have single acs ior
the down travel The 4 tbs COMMANDED separate actions
20 rtfaa Tie defendants from running their tracks and
from Iyiug tracks 10 Pcarlst and obtained inaHctions
oder in the .eeoaG c.e which was first argued
ded us rgns so close TO their track that The
10 this the answer OF the defendants IS that their track
has s'R Ssss T ID s to g hs paf rack on one
side but that they nave laid their track that when 1t Is
track and hence ther WI De no necessity OF their passing
The rrt claim that the defendants have left seven feet
between the ouhtnes aul their track which more than
Is needed fr public and not dictated by any de-
sire subserve puhc but for their accommodations
Tht their up Peaflst, and now hnd
co in which case they wiz be prevented
by the defendants track
in the other sut Ihe defendants aege right the
tracts BoWe making the proper compensation and
their readiness to make such compensation;
plaintiffs up that their track already used by the
fbirdayc Railroad that any further use Of their tracks
have never offered any compensation.
Mr. Robinson stated tnat there important preliminary
question whether tie plaintiffs Incorporated aud
whether the Tuid iTOdd Company was not JOINT
Of part # track which invOYed IN the
second He argued that the articles of association Of the
Rnod Company contained many irregularities which vita
Ted them.
That the plains right to track in public highway
exclusive the rails LAID down for public and
the control Of the Legislature Every one
drive laval over the rails The ralS &e
while the highway, dedicated 10 the pubic Tor al
whom allow travel them. The riRht Of
tbe defend II on giving compensation uqUesOn
able Franchises b taken under the power OF nnent
structed Efforts compensation and The security
The Of 1870 does not require compensation 10
be using the rails The Legislature might nave
authorized the without compensation.
Mr. Robinson argued thatthe plnntin had
no ther convenience considered before that III
The public That obstruction which might arise from their
proposed Il having ther rails has the same obstruction
precisely evy usiug vehicle IN the street was SUD
cted To- aud wioh was Incidental ell Of
That snch distractions unless Wliu were not ground OIL To-
gel Interference.
Mr. Burr argued in reply that though the right to use
ana cars carriages ana
the rgnt IT, the franchise OF collecting iares ON
II usiye If for part OF H. then II was
for the whole and company having received the iran
might occupy. without to themselves the wDOe
Track This being by several railroads ran
ming Of other roads Bem the Dry DOCK
Railroad Company The compensation unless they were CON-
PEELED to beforehand would never De paid lie also de-
that law of 1900 this pOat uuc0nStiiuOaa
VITA regard they bad received nom the
Legislature right TO The street for railroad purposes
aud subsequent grant must DO subseyient 90 their use
The present which track lald cut them on
runurg down that street but they bad a FORMER
them up Peaftst. and dow0 Diver. II might De
change back but this proposed track cut them on
IRON that night which Circumstances might MAKE DposH
The and reserved It's DECISION MI
Buir plaintiffs. H. w. Robinson and Mr. Scribner for
defendants