The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-19
SUPREME C0uRT-CHAmBERS.
The Second Avenue Railroad COmpa ny's
Bridge Over the Harlem River.
Before Judge Rarrett


Bridge Over the Harlem River.
Before Judge Barrett.
The Second Avenue Railroad Company w. The
Mayor, &c.-The Dock Commissioners some time
since directed the Second Avenue Railroad COM
pany to remove a stable on the pier fronting
Second avenue at 129th street, and also some piles
driven at the head OF the bulkhead, on the ground
that they were obstruction to navigation and
use of the wharf for shipping purposes The stable
was removed but the piles were not. After
further notice. and the railroad company refusing
to remove the latter, the Dock Commissioners sent
some men to remove the same. Upon this tenn
porary Injunction was asked for and granted re-
stranng the Dock Commissioners from their
removal. The case came up yesterday on an order
to show cause why the injunction should not be
permanent.
Mr.. O'Gorman Corporation Counsel, stated that
the railroad company based its right to have these
piles undisturbed upon an act passed by the Legs-
across the river Mt this point. This act, he in
sisted, had been repealed by implication in the
powers conferred on the Dock Commissioners.
He further insisted that the act was unconstitn-
tional, inasmuch az IL allowed the taking OF public
property for private uses. He read an affldavt OF
the engineer OF the Dock Commission, setting forth
that the piles in question could not possibly be
used in building bridge.
Mr.. Slosson, on behalf of the railroad company,
said that the piles referred to were driven into the
bulkhead only three years ago, and that the
intention was to build bridge ut an early
Portchester Railroad Company to connect
their road by this bridge. This agreement
fe through, but the intention OF building bridge
still existed and a renewal OF negotiations with
the Portchester Company was in contemplation.
II they could not make such arrangement they
would build the bridge themselves. lie further
urged that the piles we're driven within the eX-
terror water lines prescribed by the OF 1852 and
therefore that they were not trespassng upon ter
ritory under the control OF the Dock Commissioners
He claimed, further, that the removal of the piles
would interfere with the company In the operation
OF their road through destruction OF portion OF
their track and thus prevent them running their
cars to Harlem River, which, by the provisions OF
their charter, they were allowed 10 do, fully set
forth in the AFFIDAVIT OF Harvey II. Wood secretary
OF the company. map was shown OF the pro-
posed bridge to show that the building OF the same
was a bona fde intention and not chimerical idea.
Judge Barrett said that when he granted the
temporary Injunction he had doubts whether he
should interfere with the Dock Commissioners at
all. It was now evident to him that the plaintiffs
had not made ont perfectly clear case, and on this
complaint alone, irrespective OF the answer, dis
solved the Injunction.
Has Comptroller Green shown Con-
tempt Of the Courts
Orders to show cause In nineteen cases were
granted yesterday, why the Comptroller should not
be punished for contempt OF Court I'm refusing to
obey its orders directing the vacating OF Illegal
assessments They were made returnable next
Monday.
In the matter OF proving the last will and tesla
ment Of John Cleveland, &c.--MOti0n granted.
Daniel u. DOherty vs.. Judah Pierce.--Samc.
Isaac G. Kendall w. Beekman ct al three
J. Il. Spraights eft al. ys. N. s. Knapp ct aL-Mem-
orandum for counsel.
Francisco slado ct al. Vs. Michael Corkins.--Plead
Smith vs.. selmes ct al. -four suts) Upon the
coming In OF the referees report Judgment as ind
Gated VIII be granted without further notice. Ref
pinckney ct al. w. Cogswen ct al-Refcrence
hIanieu ofner 70 We settled on two days notice. to