The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-19
THE COURTS.
Injunction Suit Against the Elevated
Railroad Company.
A STRANGE BANK STORY.
City Railroads and Their Snow
Ploughs.
IMPORTANT REAL ESTATE SUIT.

In the case OF George Hughes. against whom the
government has brought an action to recover
$780, o00 as heretofore reported there was an
argument yesterday, before Judge Blstchford, O.
70 the admissibllity Of the evidence offered Judge
Blatchford took the papers.
Mrs. Isadore Gran; indicted by the Grand Jury
OF the United states Court for alleged completely
In the smuggling OF silks, yesterday gave bail in
$4,000 before United States Commissioner Shields,
to appear for trial.
the suit brought BY the House OF Mercy against
the city to vacare an assessment upon six lots,
recently added to its real estate, was yesterday
decided by Judge Van Worst, before whom it was
triea, In Supreme Court, Special Term In favor Of
the institution.
IN the suit brought by Mrs. Lawrence B. Jerome
against Luther g. CLARK, OF the firm OF Clark,
Dodge Co., and John J. Cisco TO recover $1,000
subscribed by her as part of loan to the Clifton
Iron Company the particulars OF which have
been published, Judge Van Brunt holding SUI
preme Court Circuit, before whom the case WAS
tried, dismissed the complaint this morning. The
dismissal was on the ground that the money was
not paid 10 the defendants, out TO the Treasurer
OF the company. and that they were In no way
accountable for 1t to the plaintiff.
THE ELEVATED RAILROAD.
The question of the right OF the Elevated Rail-
additional track has come before the courts for
settlement. suit has been commenced by David
Haighr and others to restrain the extension OF the
road, and especially to prevent the building Of
track in front OF houses owned by them on
Greenwich street, between Horati0 and
Bank streets. The plaintins set forth IN
their complaint that the time for the
building Of the road having expired the com.
pany has no right TO extend 1t, and that the gen.
era railroad act does not apply to the case. 1t is
further claimed that the extension OF the road in
front OF their houses through the noise caused by
passing cars and the smoke and cinders OF the
locomotives will inevitably greatly depreciate the
value OF their property as dwellings. An intunc-
ton has therefore been asked for restraining such
extension. motion for such injunction came up
for argument yesterday In Supreme Court, Cham
Mr. Shaner, on benalr or the plaintiffs, made
an extended argument setting forth at length
based. He began by reviewing the various acts Of
the Legislature IN regard TO the ROAD In the mi
being, as stated "rhe New York and Yonkers
Experimental Railroad Company In this act
bower should De stationsry engine and cableMs
provision which, he alleged, had never been
changed. For this reason he urged that the intro
ducton OF dummy engines was illegal. In the
course of his remarks he alluded to the project by
this road OF traverslng every tenth street OF the
city, OF having their roads over Contra! Park-a
.grtdtron project which he was very thankful Gov
ern0r Dix had the sense to veto ana on account
OF which he was very sorry he had not voted for
him. Coming down to the present time he con.
tended that The rOad not having been built within
the specified time, lett the directors OF the
road without any foundation In law. IN nub1buS
IN fact. He ENLARGED on the question Of fare,
which he Claimed was placed In excess OF that
allowed by tue charter, and declared that the road
instead oil being OF public use was fraud and ex-
t0rtlon In being run without any warrant or
authority or law. AS to the complalnants ne said
that they belonged TO the old KnickerbOcker
stock Of the cry were born and married In the
houses they now live In, had given their sons and
daughters in marriage there and hoped to die
there, without the noise, dust, smoke, cinders
and general nuisance OF an elevated steam
railway.
Mr.. Tracy, In reply. made an equally elaborate
argument He also reviewed the acts OF the Leg
isature in respect to the road and claimed that
1t was bought by the present owners OF the former
owners with Oil Its rights and franchises and was
now being run under the General Railroad act.
He claimed that under his act tney we're entitled
to use dummies and construct such turnouts as
they required. They proposed to construct two
turnouts. one at Franklin street. to which there
was no opposition, aud one at Bank street, the
opposition to which constituted the basis OF the
present action He insisted tnat to carry out this
plan OF giving seat TO every passenger and prop
erly accommodate those riding over their ROAD
they needed these turnOuts, and he saw no reason
why the Court should inter.e
Considerable further discussion followed, and ut
the close Judge Lawrence took the papers, hold
ing his decision IN reserve.