, 1870-06-02
THE LAW COURTS.
An Injunction to Restrain the Exten-
sion Of Milwaukee Avenue
Denied.
A 81 ..<Ehtcrcr Of ylan Convicted
Alleged Mining Swludlc.

Alleged Mining Swludyc.
Recorder's Court.
InWArKEH AVENUE Kx7EyS1ox.
hcnr5 sweet and others =. The City Of ChIcaz
Nno tne boafu OF Public WorAk Judge McAu1sser
yesterday, decided the motion for Injunction II
1hts case, as follows: This is bill FLED BY Hcnr
e"eet and dlvcfB other persons against the city
NnicaRo and tie Doart Qf Public Works for m IN
junction. to enjoln the city and the Boa-d Of Pub
lie Works from extending Milwaukee avenue
from Its Eastern terminus to a point at the inter.
eeclon of Lake and Canal streets: tn prevent the
tlection OF yiaduct OF csisssway on the street
tltis 70 be opened, and to restrain the city from
making further application for au assessment OF
me property benefited for surh work.
me case made on the hill Is substantially this:
dnat lhese 81 parties own pEoi'enT, some OF 1t nhut
used. others iocated near TO H. which properly has
been Improved, ct great expense, by the erection
pla!nants, business has becn established of great
Eaiue ana Importance; that thry have paid an as
sessmenf 1dr the grading and paving Of Mlwaukec
avenue. and, Claiming that the extension Of the
sIeet IN tue manner Indicated, and building or
1als causeway, would incidentally damage their
ptone.TE They also Claim that there have been
TWO attempts to obtain judgment IN the Sune-1or
Soo11 lot the assessment Necessary to cayout this
work which have been defeated, and that the city
authorities propose to make anuther ATTEMPT
IEt o!n goes on to ailege that in Juir, 1865,
% Watasnt any le5itton having scn presented 70 tie
Icest an ordinance for the extension nf MI
Markee avenue, as have stated, but does mt set
u fs, 'ae @ osdnsnce nor docs Il set out the votes
aesCral Of them itc bill is not sworn to bv sin AZ
11ia 16do'rasd nn1 and believe that the ordnance
al 1ne metels Of he coune 0Gq n,6ass, vote Of
aAs, ~ pursuance OF that ordinance. an Assesss
men m roll was PREPARED and led It then goes On
t5 ~ slate Fafous Irregularities without producing
COPY OF the assessment rnls but ststes thai it
san Tnr , ~ ~ see possession OF the c!tJ
oels-tet, and another application MS made, which
IN IL ~ Se manner defeated By the Court refus-
hare examined this Bill With nartjcu,ar care
go applied 70 it those principles that ought Ia nv
3uotemcnl to Nc applied In granting or rejecting N
mater OF this SUI, 50 Tar rs part ur the relief
etaimsd Is soncetnca, IL succsncsy and properly
Walker, XXI Illinois G1o: -
a tS%ss % 5hsn @ soure equity
t1s 1S nd siGs sus.on n. Mfnof fGa5 II rS.s q:
;3s ~ 5:ssS III
gss:y { sAs sr ts
q q in Pc
Hesn tn h .s 2f.t .c Ct PSs
q s sssy s e eoean aft II
WI, dn1s ~ goes on to state that there Is, and has
Deen, fraudulent scheme on foot on the part OF
Iii s,r. :, ' Railway compan! 70 srpcure
way constructed Upon II for its own benefit 1t
alleges ssr1ors acts done by 1t: matters conducted
WIN secrecy plans having been prepared ly them
1oT this rutrosc, which have been kcpt secret
n N AZ persons except a few who wished to my
n!tfcrly, Which would be enhanced in ynluc br
the Improvement, II cousumna.ed, and known
Only TO some members OF the Common Council
me n!l dues not make That railroad company 8
party defendant nor dues 1t alleSe any fraudulent
colluson between the railway company and the
S1!S authoriues; consequently, everything th1t Is
Aueged On that subject Is entirely immateraI in
thls case And 1t is enurely mmaterial that these
Ifupclty-oWhers who have filed this bill, hare
a1avamcn Of this bIll Is obscured and CONCEALED led
tc oetG1sh large mass Of 1mna.cssl snd imper1i-
necessary, In order TO Interfere 70 etas the cocc
aon OF ta1 or assessment already in the course
shown besides Irregularities which render II roid
pssaase aus me party has complete remedy at law.
nns s Is IN hs na tar Is TIE course q de-
answerahle considerations and arguments it
Ronld be necessary to show that the assessment
pronosed 70 be cauected was levied by persons moi
w3lich l. was Illegal in itself or fraudulent Hoes
ss ~ present snJ case within the jurisdiction Of
II order to show that the construction Of this
We soncS O. esnseway, would be Illegal or that the
SGt e.S1e1n terminus to the intersection OF Lake
and CanA ~ stseets Is 80, it Is necessary to show
docs not cory tue ordinance but he stsie that An
o5 Etsag taat ordnance II fui, 8 that he court
shIse.seaHhs vote. vas xhien a1e passed. Sea,a By b
ne q pusc = VIZ a8s psen Tlae pre
tne Eind o1 pleading upon which Court of Eu,,ifT
can Tn;1as aes y a. g.assng an naneton The charter
Y recetded. There is record OF that vote and
haes T. Is whn the %sans and power Of ,ae party
precisely what the facts were; hoT many Alder
~ 1hs, Me1e presen and how they voted 20 that,
foundation for the inference that that ordIuauce
9S 1n,sS seid ! 9heIs fs y to be no presumpuou e.
appa 1oT an nanc,o1 1oa @zt ee, s9,s se tss
facts with reasonable certainty, and establish
then 20 thst they address themselves to the con-
can determine that It IS case within The princpie
a1,rsssaH to give turtsdcs1on to court Of equity
tht Of ,hss sssss Of = .9 sase aaas
1Sst at r. fas IS Illegal y not clearly Established
or illegal 5eesuse the aa iaess .s az as
the an y net h,s sera,q ss9 soa1 b. az means .a4t
]: ,,i1eG EiT1aGe er 9Te1 street for the benefit Of
1hoze them to ouiid 6sdee ShIeh IL s9ea eepara, az
3Im stt. and M aeeEe he street The only authority
ae 9a a1es on tas sgsjsst M T. us
mon Council lGary:s Ordinances. -: ~A~ ~o'1'
tSe e e; .aa 1ears th sss,d
f 1saR lsass "a {. + 's
a1psa sdssa nDe r. e Iotss5 pbus
'Ses siss +: e 81 = Fs
The reason why it Ia not developed in this case.
20 that the Court can SEE that The building Of |
saqseWa5 8 @ @ Moud he necessarily Illegal IN Ills case
3 not soss a. ,atsaE H., q the sfaas. sna .
aave Gs s9eet net seS fhat m # to