The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-05
Rights Of Street Railroads to Clean
Their Tracks.
MORE BLACK FRIDAY SUITS.
Continuation Of the Shaughraun-
Skibbeah Case.
DRUNKEN RAILROAD PASSENGERS.
The Companies Not Responsible
for Their Safety.

In the suit brought BY William A. stephens
lgainst Benjamin. Allen, the facts OF which nave
been published, Judge Lawrence. in the supreme
coult, Cham ers, yesterday continued the injunc-
ton order. Mr. Allen was President OF the COOK
County National Bank, anu the suit was brought
to wind up the arairs or Allen, stephens Co..
the Injunction being against the issue Of an at
tacnment against the interest OF Allen IN the
pustnsss OF Allen. stephens co.
John b. Whittemore, Clerk OF the Third District
Court, brought suit against the city for differ
ence between 81, 500 and 50, 900 year salary The
latter IL claimed as being the amount liked BY
statute, and the former his salary as reduced BY
she Board OF Apportlonment. Judge Van worst
holding Supreme Court, Circuit before whom the
case was tried, directed verdict for the difference
sued for, subject however, TO review Of the case
as the General Term. Similar disposition was
made in the suit brought by Patrick Reed. Janitor,
suing for difference between $1,000 and 81, 500
year salary.
The suit OF Charles W. Hasler against various
railroad companies, on petitions OF the Columbus.
Chicago and Indiana Central, and the Plttsburg
Cincinnati and St Louis Railroad companies. in
which the matter IN adjudication refers to pre-
Jerred bonds, was yesterday transferred from the
supreme Court to the United States Court.
Eliza Hersey died in February last lie wing two
wills, one executed in 1872, the other In 1874. In
pally to cousins and a niece, with requests 70
other friends not relatives In the later VIII she
hsqueatned annuities to the Indgent Christian
Woman's society and to the Children's Aid So
ctety. Both wills have been offered TO probate,
and, OF course a contest arises the relatives con-
sesting the later win and the of1cers OF the two
institutions benefited thereby contesting the first.
SNOW PLOUGHS AND SWEEPERS.
To Jobp
OF the New JERSEY Central Railroad Company,
applied before Judge Robinson, in Special Term
Of the Court OF Common Pleas for an Injunction
against the christopher ana Tenth Street Railroad
Company, enjolning them from throwing the
snow on the sidewalk IN font OF his residence
through use OF their snow pioughs and sweepers.
The case, as will be remembered. was argued at
considerable length, when Judge Robinson took
the papers to examine the law applicable to the
ease. He gave his decision yesterday, refusing to
grant the injunction and mis- reasons are set forth
IN the following extracts IRON his opinion:-
In the course OF legislation cases are
constantly occurring where laws are enac-
ted for the puoic good which seriously
viduals and this constitutes but such
Sacrlrce OF private interests as every one is IN
benen. O. inc Community IN which he lives.
Inc grant by the Legislature of such franchise
% that neid and enjoyed by the defendants con;
iers upon the grantee special privilege beyond
that which is pos essed BY any citizen
Is OF common right. TO the exlert OF
IL confers privileges and imposes duty to be
performed Tor the convenience or benefit OF
the public. The right 10 thus run aud operate q
railroad through one OF the public streets, while
Inconsistent with The easement enjoyed IN com.
thereto, and such common right must yield and
become subordinate TO the purposes OF the IRAN
Iesisiatnre involves not ONLY what is given
or conferred in express terms. but also, as
incidents, all sucn other powers as shall
OF those enumerated are gwen. All inconsistent
starutes and CITY ordinances are 10 that extent
repealed. AS 10 al! Inter .erences with sucn
grant, Chancellor Kent says ia Kenrs Com
meutaries, 459)-'Ine common law contains prin.
cpes applicable to this subject, dictated by sound
Judgment and enlightened moralty. IL declares
all such invasions OF franchises TO be nulsances,
and the party aggrleved mas his remedy at COM
mon law by action on the case for disturbance,
and 10 modern practice he may resort to CnaDcerv
to stay the INJURIOUS Interference by injunction.
As TO railroads this protection IS lurther insured by
section AZ OF the General Railroad act, which makes
II highly penal to stop or obstruct tneir opera
view to the public convenience, he duty Is
also imposed upon the grantee OF such
accommodating the public at all times with
prompt and convenient passage" q Kent's CON-,
<58-s.) In the adoption Oy the defendants or the
use OF a snow plough ana sweeping machine for
rne purpose OF specially removing the newly fallen
snow rom of their racks 1t aJundanty appears
that they but performed me duty Imposed upon
them by law and tnat this use OF sucn machines
accomplished enectualiy ana economically. On the
argument this being made clearly 10 appear by
the opposing afldavi's, II IS alleged by palnti1s'
counsel that bis clients were injured by toe de-
PENDANTS suffering the snow thus swept by
sucn machines on to the intervening
tracks and the Sidewalk to remain Ia the
street, as it, together with the snow he In COM
pliance with the city ordinance had shoveed or
thrown from of Gis own sidewalk and street gut
ter snd had reduced or fashioned into a passabe
q
venlclcs and constituted an unauthorized inter-
ference with mis- access 20 nis own premises This
argument Is founded upon misconceptlon OF the
relative rights and duties OF these parties. IL
would be EMIT ed TO some force were 1t urged as
between parties having but common right In the
public streef. should any person vested with no
special privilege attempt Tor MS own convenience
the facilitating the passage OF heavy yencles or
those oil such character a. required for their
venient passage that the snow should be Te-
moved from tne-e tracks as IL required for the
railroad cars OF the de endants 1t mIgnt be larry
question TO what extent one citizen might thus
on occasions OF pereIstently subject the pubic
street to MS own private convenience and 30 me
Inconvenience and SPECIAL injury OF others, out IN
consideration OF the entirely different privileges
and duties or the parties To TINS actlon III or 10
the use OF Eighin street, IL seems clear that de-
fendants, by virtue OF their franchise, fully pos
gessed the rRnt a. against the plaiDtiH, and every
one else To adopt inc summary MODE complained
OF TO remove the snow ana ice rom on their tracks
and at sucn distance tnererom to insure It's
not being again accidently thrown thereon so as
TO further oostruct the passage OF their cars That
in thus exercising the privilege and performance
devolved upon tnem Of subsequ ntly remov-
ing elsewhere from the roadway or the
severing from the mass OF previously
accumulated between their tracks and the side
walk such PORTIONS additional amount as they
had thus caused to De thrown thereon rom on
their track. The enforcement OF such subse-
quent DUTY woud be in the nature OF an operative
or WORKING injunction, mandatory rather than
pronibitory, ana ENDS no countenance 10 the prin-
ciples Of equity under which an Injunction Is to be
granted. rJe TRIVIAL and accIueutal occurrence
or the throwing OF snow by the plouRns aud
weeping machines on 20 the sidewalk might be
Iustined under ne Ike principe, az ~ rs Dat
part OF the public street; but, az IL Is shown that
Inc Improved machines recently used remedy any
such accident. mere is no ground or complaint
left for conslde rai ion requiring any such summary
remedy as au injunction. Upon these consdera-
tons I am OF the opinion that the motion for an
Injunction should De denied. Ordered accordingly,
With $40 costs
MORE BLACK FRIDAY SUITS.
The events OF Friday, September "a, 1850 BLACK
Rridaxl In wall street. are not % pass away win