New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-23

TIE RIGHTS OF STREET RAILROADS.
JUDGE DOSOHCE FoH8IDs TIN THROWING or SNOW
on TIE RAILROAD TRACK5-THE LEGISLATURE
TIE ONLY SOURCE OF RELIEF FOR PRIVATE CIT
zENs
Judge Donohue, in Supreme Court, Cham
hers has rendered bis decision the OF The CBrf
topher and Tenth street Railroad against Tie Mayor and
the Police Commissioners, the motion 10 enloin the
defendants from tnro Wing TIE plaintiffs tracks
As rppored In TIE TRIBUNE at the time the police au-
thores claimed that they only threw back much snow
az the plaintiffs had unla wfuly thrown from their own
tracks to another part OF the street. and had done that
In such manner 10 produce little II any embarrass
ment to the road. Judge DOnOhue, on the argument
said it was merely question Of law and that question
OF law ne has decided for The plaintiff The main points
of his decision are as follows;
In This case ths plaintiffs and operate, under
snecial quarter a railroad through Tenth and other
streets IN tho City New York, aud they complain That
the Police Commissioners snd the defendants are throw
ING the SLOW their tracks In such way as to IMPEDE
the nse OF the railroad do not understand any caln
missoneIs that they have the right TO generally place
the snow plaintiff tracks. but the claim is that tno
nIainns by their -plows and their streetsweep
ing machines having thrown the snow on the gu
the side OF the street thereby making an accumulation
mat eeriously nterferes with the use OF NE street
he have the right Ia replace the Wnoie OF
some part OF the snow on the tracks TO Improve he use
on the streets The first Question raised Is on mo ght
TO use the employed by the plaintiff to clean ths
has occurIed This subject has received the attention
and thorough consideration, within rev weeks, oi
conrt possessing Jurisdiction Coordinate Win thls
Court and aside from ability and learning or tho
ndge who onsdered the that decision entitled
~ same consideration as the judgment OF one OF
The i1dges OF this Court The opinion delivered SHOWS
a Thorough examination OF the case, drcctN on tn9
Uni in question: aud, II not fully cOlcHrna
rwnnId hesitate In declining 10 follow IT, The dlincuy
On the mart attempting 10 restrain the use Vi 's
49, smnloyed by plaintiffs cleaning their TRACKS IS
thai the Legislature seems TO have looked solely a. tne
ghts of tine railroad corporations and tue courts nave
a" construed the rights granted s1a therefore io
Low until contrary rule shall he made Judge RODinsohs
dscislon especially IL applies to tins very road Oh
THIS very right -. ,,.Ao ,,..o ..r-o.d ann,
many mad the right do what they have done the fo
les Commissioners have the night 10 undo H. IL seems
70 me mai tins must answered In the negative Do
oa. n me snow IL 80 replaced the track. the same
can resorted to 10 put 1t on anu the fght
il so us,essed to clean their road. II nu carry Win
,be rgIt 10 have the road left free The rght TO cieln
mns inc Jude the right 10 have the ROAD Tree from lhter
,rsnce OF Ihis kind Whatever inconyenenees OF ais
regard of pra vaLe right there may DC IN the Atte e
dress must come from the power that placed matters
where they are. IL IS " thAt INC paito' "u'' w ~
tel. Motion grAnIed.