The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-06-13
SUPREME coUaT-spsClaL TERM.
The LOew Bridge Before the C0urts-Suit for
Damages and the Abatement of the Bridge
Nrisance-POkce Duty Under tie
Bridge, and Opinions Concerning the People
Who PRtrOniZe IL.

Damages and the Abatement of the Bridge
as "A NUisance-Pokce Duty Under the
Bridge, and Opinions Concerning the People
Who PRtronize IL.
Before Judge Daniels.
Charles Knor rs. the Mayor ana Con,moa0hp or
Ne,o YorK.-This case comes before the court as an
issue OF law and fact, the action being brought to
recover damages alleged to have been sustained by
plaintiff in his business and property by the erection
and continuance in its present position OF the Loew
bridge" an aerial iron structure at the intersection
Of Broadway and Fulton street, and also for the
abatement OF the bridge as nuisance. Plaintiff
claims $4,000 damages, and Hamilton Robinson
appears as counsel for the plaintiff and Andrew J.
Rogers for the defendants. the city authorities.
The case came up for trial yesterday morning before
this court, and the p.anf being called as witness
testified that the bridge was source or inconvenience
ana damage to his property aud business by reason
OF its obstruction Of the light: plaintiff had eX-
pended $4,000 upon the LAYING Of sidewalk IN front
OF his premises which had been necessitated by the
peculiar structure OF the bridge: II done by him
under authority Of the Common Council; he
also says that Is great resort OF ioafers and
cross IL. lie says he never was willing TO have
any bridge there, though he did urge the adoption OF
different pattern OF bridge with spiral stairways IL
any was he built and that he opposed this bridge
to Alderman Loew and others, though he did not
make any formal oppostlon TO the mayor and Boards
~ Councilman and Aldermen that nj the time the
bridge was about being built he contemplated suelng
for an injunction against Il, but was prevented by
the advice Of both the Corporation Counsel and his
own counsel that such course would be useless
and that his only course would be In damages for
any injury that might arise.
Messrs. Rich and Jardne were also called wit
nesses and examined with reference TO the plans OF
various descriptions OF bridges and also OF the bridge
In question The former witness was the architect
OF the Loew Bridge, and the latter, Mr. Jardine was
the author OF plan for bridge az the corner Of Full
ton street and Broadway, acting under injunctions
from Mr.. Knox, the plaintiff.
Charles Z. Loew, at present Clerk OF the county OF
New York, and formerly Alderman OF this city, was
examined and testified that he was the protector
and advocate In the Common Council of the struc-
ture known as the "L0ew Brdge:n IL had been
erected in pursuance OF resolution OF the Common
Council and under a charter granted by the Legisa-
ture: an appropriation OF $4,000 to defray the ex-
penses OF It's erection was made by the Legislatures;
purpose OF essening the difficulties and impedments
to travel on Broadway at Fulton street. Mr.. Knox,
the plaintiff submitted a plan to witness for the
construction of q bridge at the corner OF Broad
way and Fulton streets, and was DESTROYS that
bridge should be erected; the plan submitted by Mr..
Knox had eight staircases-four abuttng on Broad
way and four on Fulton street-al OF them Terminal
CITY surveyor Sackisdorf, called for the defence.
was examined and testified that he was a profess
sional civil engineer and architect; knew that the
present Ioew Bridge was In contemplation before IL
was erected and had the plans submitted and made
suggestions concerning them; the common appel
ation OF such structure Is aerial bridges" witness
had noticed the effect OF the bridge on the light with
reference to Mr. Knox's premises: IL was 0bstruc-
ton To the light but not to any great extent the street
where the bridge erected has never had sufficient
tested this matter without any reference to this
bridge; in the first place he had tested the capacity
OF the thoroughfare by actual count was tested for
purpose in connection with witness Official bus-
ness; witness found that the capacity OF the side
walk was hardly sufficient; these observations were
taken at stated hours OF the day. the roadway Of the
street was In about the same predicar0ent, n not
worse on account OF the travel being so great; wit
ness had seen such crowds on the sidewalk there
that they blocked up the PASSAGE witness had never
seen an accident happen there, but there was great
apparent danger; policemen are stationed there TO
assist the public at that point; witness had noticed
how this bridge was used by pedestrians; Il was
most used In bad weather and when the roadway
was obstructed by vehicles; the bridge was particu
larry used In the spring. when the side streets were
0bsruced by snow and ice; the greater part Of the
persons who used the bridge 'moved on" but
others sometimes remained standing on II to see the
sights; witness had noticed the passengers on 1t
daily.
Ofncer Hayes Of the Metropolitan police. Broadway
squad, was next called as witness for the plaintiff,
and testified that he had been stationed, In accord
ance with instructions, for duty at the corner OF
Broadway and Fulton street; had occupied that post
OF duty for two years, on the 18th OF August 1857,
was duty there before the bridge erected the
accommodation OF travel the street had been about
the same since the fridge constructed that 10 had
been before the eject OF the bridge had not been TO
relieve the street below; the taxing OF pictures Ia
daily occurrence In fine weather; the signal
when pictures are taken is the blowing OF
a horn; witness duties were to aid persons in
crossing the street and guard against INSTRUCTIONS