, 1874-06-21
CHICAGO s. PACIFIC ROAD.
The Hearing of the N otton for an In
tnnction Again Postponed.

| The Hearing OF the N otton for an In
junction Again Postponed.
Tie argument on the motion to extend tho in
junction restraining the Chicago l. Pacific Rail
road Company from using their tracks on South
port avenue, inside the city limits wns to have
been maGe before Judge Farwen yesterday, but
was not for tho reason mentioned below. The
attendance of propersy-holuors interested was
very large the courtroom being crowded Mr.
Edward Jussen and Mr., Hutchinson represented
the plaintiffs, and Mt. William @. Cloudy ap-
pcared On behalf Of the corporation.
1lr. Jussen asked leave 10 flo
AN AMENDED D1LL,
eettiuc forth the same allegations as the original
one, but more specifically.
Mr.. Goudy did not question his right to hio 1t,
but he thought ho had right to read it and the
other papers before going to argument
Mr. Jussen desired to know exactly the motion
Which was to be considered, since he "as not
present when it WAS made.
Mr., Goudy replied that no Injunction had been
granted, simply restraining order, preliminary
to motion for au injunction.
ar. Juesen moved for all in Junction to restrain
ths read from completing the track, and from
operating it in any manner whatevar, The mo-
ton WAS based upon the bill and afidavifs*
r..
examining tle documents No prejudice could
follow to the parties complainant by sdofcrment
of few DAYS. He was hound to take up the
motion under the original bill. and had applied
to Mr.. CLYDE (Who had been co'1nsel) three times
to learn what his proposed amendments were.
but had been Informed that he VaS no longer
connected with the case.
Mr. Juasen bad no doubt that tue defendants
were perfectly willing to continue the case in
definitely. But il it were continued. his clients
IL - ~ nrfon - +H0f
no FURTHER DAMAGE
should be incurred by them--that the Company
be not permitted to trains on the road IN tho
meantime, or to complete the track. He claimed
that the Company had taken possession OF tho
streets, and damaged adjacent property-owners
without authority Of INV, and in violation of the
Constitution OF the State. II his position we're
correct. the corporation should not bs permitted
to do moro damage. and make the track more
permanent than 1t was.
THE AMENDED BILL
The Court inquired if the amended bill charged
tue facts as alleged in the original bill.
Mr. Jussen replied that it did not, It set out
the building Of the track, the intention OF tha
Company to operate it, and, Little more fully,
the damage done adjaccnt property &C c.
affidavis supported the allegations 70 far as the
damages were concerned. There was no point
which could not be as well argued under the
amended as under tie original bill:
Dir. Goudy said ho was engaged Ia preparing
= written argument to bs submitted to Judge
D1ucuond Monday, and therefore it would be
inc1 " enient for him to go on With tho argu-
ment then; and he conceived that he had the
right to have the matter postponed until he had
3 look at the papers. liz might understand
them differently from Mr. Jussen. aud was enti-
tied to the exercise Of his judgment upon them.
Besides, he had right to answer the bill. il the
facts we're such as could be contradicted. Hs
m.do no answer to the other one. Mr. Jussen
said the amended bill WAS the same; if 50. Why
amend it? The COMPANY did not propose to
use tie tracks. but to put them Oh level with
The streft: and be could not see how anybody
could be injured by doing that.
The Court did not suppose material damage
would result to any one by letting the matter
did not 1se the track which was down. bat would
certainly not be used until the pending htiga-
tion was over. Tho proposition appeared to
bo to
TUT THE TRACK IN ORDER,
and this. he thought, wond not be an injury to
the rropertv-ownerB. Thew. however. should
not be allowed to uee it until the motion WAS
decided He would allow the motion to be nado
upon tae original bill, but it made under the
amended bill, the defendants counsel should
have an opportunitr to examine it.
Air. Jusaen replied that the reason why he
asked for IN enlargement of the mi junction or
prob; oitory order WAS 1T the complains nts had
anv rights at a1l to come into court and seek ro-
lief. uEat the defendant had taken possession Of
the sfr.ct and constructed tho track, inf1ictin9
damage 1,pon adjacent propcrty-owners without
making tt,cm anv compensation or provision for
it. Hence. he claimed, If tbs CORPORATION wero
allowed to finish up their work, it would be SUI
fered to do an illegal act.
afr. Gousi desired to know how the property
owners would be injured BY putting the track IN
propcr condition.
Air. juesen rejoined that the Company had no
right to lay the track under the ordinance, it be-
ing unconstitutional
CONDITION OF THE STREET.
The Court remarked that that would come up
on the argument The question now was who
would be injured by putting OF the argume ment
aud preventing the COMPANY from adjusting the
track Us it should be adjusted. Was thero OBJ
lection to making the street passable for teams?
sIr. Jussen thought that depended upon the
decision OF the Court upon the question OF the
unconstitutionality Of the ordinance. The prop
ertv owners would be injured to the extent Of
giving credit the Company, and they did not
know whether it WAS solvent or not.
The Court eaid the question was an Important
one for the public, who would be annoyed if the
street were imrafeable~
Mr. Jussen thought tho Company would not
lose it's franchise il the track we're left as it
He objected to anything moro being done toward
Mr. Goudy urged that the proposed work was
to be done for the convenience OF the people.
The crossings were passable noH but the track
must be sunk, and put on a level With tbe Etreet.
80 as not to be an obstruction. Tho entire
travelling community was interested more than
AIr. Juascn and his clients. The remark of
tho counsel about indefinite postpone
ment was gratuitous and uncalled for.
The Company wished to avoid unneces-
sary irritation to the people, proposing to
treat them fairly. and it they were entitled to
damages, to pay them. By not putting tho track
in order, the Company WAS t1espassing on the
demands and orders OF the Board Of Public
Works, and were not treating the community
rightly. No one would bo hurt, and, ii his
clieuts had not the constitutional right 70 occupy
the street. nothing would be gained BY delay.
The Court might make IN order that the road
SHOULD not be used.
11r. Jutecn contcnded that, by go doing, the
Court aesnmed that the Company had right to
occupy the street.
NOT At ALL.
The Court remarked that putting tho track in
order would not cut OF the rights Of the COM
plainant, and that the public should not be in
jnred by endangerins life Should nothing be
done to take away the liability OF danger to the
public?
Mr.. Hutchinson eaid the track ought to ba LETT
in such condition that it could be easily re-
moved. It was great damage to the property
holders ~ it WAS the ties lying the top OF the
ground, and the rails simply spiked on and it
was also damage to the public at large, and the
sooner it Was removed tho better for all con-
cerEed.
Tho Court did mot think the Co1nnnnv yonld