New-York tribune., 1869-05-07
THE e..
THE WEST SIDE ELEVATED RAILWAY CO. At
Tackled IN THE COURTS.

THE WEST SIDE ELEVATED RAILWAY CO. AT
Tackled IN THE COURTS.
A bill has been filed by John A. Currisr Of
No 2 Greenwichs in the United States Circuit Court
for the Southern District OF New York against the west
side Elevated Railroad Co. The following synopsis
the bill Il reetes length tho incorporating the
Company and gives history OF its operations uB to the
present time To then states that the plaintiff is not IN
formed whether the Company ever procured the assent
OF the City of to the construction OF the ra
mental line had been constructed the Common
Council passed resolution declaring ,ch snch
Ought to be sbated that it Is the intention Of the Cou
many 70 take poSsess0n OF so much of the streets
pveues through which t is proposed to run the railway
and Of the private property fronting such thorougaIes
as may 6e necessary to enable the company TO
above named and Informed and believes that his ght
aud title covers all the premises in front thereof
ing the middle of the street. and that the said street
never bocare the property Of the City Of New-Yok ana
that the city has only an easement or right OF way
premises in connection with the cellar OF haa pIenis,
@s1 the ana injury will be Sustained
by him. for which he cannot have an adequate Gopens9
ton at law; that the construction OF the railway wn
embarrass access 10 the front portion OF plaintiffs pre
Ses viii darken tho windows thereof and 0Dstruct tno
view therefrOm; viii Impede and prevent the nee
circulation OF air therein and WILL by means
OF the supports OF said railway, communicate the
oscillation OF the track OF SAID railway ana the mouoh
OF the cars thereon 10 plaintiffs premises In sneh man
seriously to irjure their Use ana enoynen ana
will permanently deteriorate the value thereO1 ana VIII
by reason the noise OF the proposed cars seriously Ia
jure the said building as an habitatlon; that plMnV
believes that the rights claimed by tho Company are III
violation Constitution Of the United states ana OF
the Constitution Of the State Of New.York ana hat tne
erection Of the railway Ia the manner propoSeu VIII
and the same SO far as erected is nuisance; ana
that there hundreds OF land owners on TIE ptopose
route OF said railway who oiJeett 10 IT'S CONSTRUCTION anu
whose rights cannot be protected unless 10y multiplicity
OF SUITS II the railway constructed Tho plaintiff there
fore prays that the Company 10 perpetuaiJ
eljoined from further prosecuting the con
strncIion Of the railway and from ntGLierp3 hn
nuisance; that the Company be deoreed to remove te
railway and that plaintiff have such further relief as inc
equity the may require and as to the Court may
meet and that the Company be required 10 answer
this bill OF complaint ana abide 10y su9n % 1rI, % , @ at
the court may make; ana further iha tIr Conit ga'
to plaintiff provisional and preliminary INJUNCTION on
ceeding i'm the nstruc Of the railway until the ques
ton of perpetual injunction be decided Argument on
motion for injunction viii probably DO heAfd III the
U s. Circuit Court within few days
A DEFAIJLTING ATTORNEY AND HIS BONDsMEN
W0,I0n apt LiUinlStOn ct dl.-The plaintiffs
ussnd having died and she desiring tO reside In Penn
sylyana was induced by John livingston, lawyer OF
hond With two sureties who utterly Irresponsible
Finding this out and that Livingston had appropriated
the greater part OF ner estate and was pccunary IRE
sponsible Mrs Waylan commenced proceedings 20 have
him removed for fraud. Al this time II appears thn'
Jugs we're protraced for nearly year, and 1t was dur
ing the proceedings suggested TO Mr. Livingston mat
IN he would file q bond with good snrces he could
et ot Of the matter without dshOnOr while at the same
time Mrs Wayan's rights wOuld he secured new bona
was filed by Livingston In due form on lt face. ana the
surrogate m lde decree tIe fling OF the new bond
dsuissinc the proceeding against Livingston. Living
sion subsequently left the State ana the plaintiff com
mcnccd this action against hnn and bis sureiies. Ito
himself could not be found, the defense in TINS case
Is nterposcd by the suetes Their story is that they
wcrc Germans, knowing little or nothing Uf our tgal
having business relations one s tenant the
other as client Livingston, aud that Livingston had
represented them that tho paper lie asked them 10 sign
was a mere form, OF which they wonld never hear
again, but which would he faVOf 20 MN I"I
tiem 10 sign One OF them. In fact said there was no
when e signed; the otner did not remember ~ On
these facts tho defense argued that tho execution Mas
that the signatures had Deca pOCuT6d by
fraud; that bond procured at the instance oi
ucrfOuance OF the trust subsequent 10 ls execution ana
could not be held tO cover conversion complete beiofi
and that the pla aut, having really lost her money be.
foro that time, parted with no value by reason OF the
bono aud u POSITION analogous 10 that of per
son taking note for prrtNisCnt debt, Hud every de-
feusr gpod IA against Livingston good against her
Judge DAILY held that none Of these points were
valid 4 defect Of seal was not "a defense,
as a mere simple contract or undertaking
wa. n good ground Of action ihat tue fraud
which would lee q defense 90 this action must be
fraud by the plaiun, her agent 20 mslcad or DC
ccve the dereudauts, or conspiracy To do 20 which
would rcudcry sOn her agent n the deceit bul tht
there was no proof Of anyirg looking 10 ls nut hug
gcstion perfectly proper Tor tho panih aud almost the
duty OF her lawyer make that The bond was LOT oy
for the faithful performance of other duties uut Io me
acc lutlnC yhen Thereto required Tor all The moneys
he had when thereto rrqu c1; thnt the PLAIN
thereby lost her remedy by attachment against
Iiyuggtuu and tho Court could o. divide the u,s Ia
snch manner II was very hard oaseN To the honor
OF the bar he would say that such case had never be-
fore come before him. one Of two innocent parties must
suffer- aud in such eases 10 well settled that u must
ba that marty whose creessnes Ignorance or neglect
had caused the loss 10 the other. Tie p.lnuu must
therefore have Judgment for her claim oi 1000