New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-15
THE COURTS.
,,o,,rs op STREET RAILROADS.

THE RIGHTS OF 81 hEEi hAAi"On'
ruE POWER OF THE Police TO Ihi'o" sNo" 0N
THE TRACKS
Tho motion for an injunction against the
,,svor and the Police TO restrain them from throwing
row ON the tracks the Christopher and Tenth street
p.pr,ad Company was argued on Saturday pe'olo
Jnace Donohae in Supreme Court. Chambers. w. H.
Bright TOR the Company. stated the con'en.s u -"
COMPLAINT and afidsylts which were TO the enec' Una"
men, under the charge Of the Street-eieShus DeP"'
n.ont had thrown snow on the tracks Oh INC ios, u
when the employees Of the Company Attempted W TO
,,ve H. the SLOW preventing them from running thelr
cars n poceman Informed them that ho was instructor
IN nreyept them. Corporation Counsel h. Deiaheiu
smith read the answer Of the Ponce commissioners
winch was TO the effect that The halrOau Company,
removing the SNOW from the tracks, IN place oi taxing
il away had deposited the part of the street over
which their franchise did not eXtond That the poce
were charged with cleaning the streets and removing
distinctions, aud ia the exercise OF that duty Dad
thrown back on the tracks such proportion OF the Cd
sructng heaps hao come from the track but ony 81
much at a could be melted ny the sun Wlthout
interfering with the passage OF cars lie further staten
ilt whlle the ponce were proceeding III tns a
manner, the ciszeus along the route VINO haa ,eua .
with tae Company on account uf tue matter turned out
ana threw the snow BACK ON the tTaeAs 'he "o'e""S
uase Donohue said he did not propose this motion
ciiLor 10 review Judge Ronsons decision wnen ~, ne
t.Ought himself bound to follow, nor 10 inquire no sne
way IN which The w9k Was Gone. Inc 4us th r,gpt
simply legal one had the police authorues 1n is
q
bright argued that the law gave the railroad
lat "a powers Judge DonOEue said no thOuRht IL nau
gwen them abOu, all TIE poBers the people obce POS
Bright continued to argue iidt Huy iu.oA
ference with tncir franchise ana duty Nasa uulsaneo
thai the Court should Everything necessary W
The CfiOyment OF thcir franchise was lnciuueu m tc
franchise enjoyment required the street 10 DC
ciseQ ali Otner traffic, IT must Dc so clOseu. INC
Citz.ns had right occupy the streets wnen .he
riirosd companies required them. Tie flgnt oI Tue
companies Was paramount 10 that OF the Ordinary use
a. tue street Mr.. saith supposed they mgn cross tne
tr els when The cars half nile on Mr. bright
red HAT any throwing Of on the tracHs was au
structOn The requiring the us3 OF more horses
tt A. as not IcmuVing obstruction from the street
10 throw part To anoiher anu tndt
WAS not the Police Board but the Board OF fuDhc
Works that charged with removing intumbfahceS,
aud, m cOucuSOn urged that streets through wien
the railroads ran WIRE IN general IN better and more
useful condition than streets where there were uohe
iue ntioning tue condition OF Nassau-St.
bic Smith, replying for the city, claimed hat u was
no part necessary incident 10 the enjoyment oi
tncir franchise that Company should pie UP Tue
snow me part The street outside their track only
what As necessary given, and II they could clear
the tracks n Inherent manner the rights OF the cru
Ems required they should do so, so as not to,ncumDer
lac rest the street aud that the careful spreading OF
Tue xuow, proposed and carried ont by The street.
0i tse ears Ii the injunction could no NJ mOdlned as
permit such spreading be wouid noe object 10 its CON
tinaauoe pending the suit Decision reserved