New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-12-08
THE COURTS.
AN INTRUSION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

JUDGE DONOHUE CONTINUES THR INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE UsE OF TRIBUNE" LAND IN RE-
PAIRING AN ADJOINING WALL
The pulling down Of the building belonging
to THE TRIBUSE Association FrankfOrt-st. exposed
the condition OF the east wall OF The Sun building SUI
pernendent Adams had 1t condemned unsafe, and the
Court made the usual order that The sun Printing Asso
citation take down the wall, that 1t be done ut their
expense by the Department OF Buildings Mr.. Adams.
the Superintendent OF Buildings after this order stopped
work on tie preparation OF the lot OF THE TRIBUNE for
foundations for building. and undertook to enter
upon and the lot TO take down the condemned wall
Suit thereupon was begun by THE TRIBUNE Association
TO prevent the seizure OF their property the ground
that IL unauthorized and unnecessary "a the removal
OF Suns wall could take place through The SuRs
premises The motion for pjunction argued be
fore Judge Donohue I'm Supreme Court Chambers, who
has given opinion sustaining the ground taken on be-
half OF The TRIBUNE Association, as follows:
In this cGse the plaintiffs have obtained Injunction
against the defendants The Sun A-socaton and Acas
the Superintendent OF Buildings to prevent either from
the defendants first named The case made plaintiffs
atdavts shows tile in the plaintiff That the threatened
attempt VIII result IN loss To the palIn Tor tue CAUSES
stated IN the papers Tor which PREPARATION at law canno
be bad and that Adams without any necessity or author
iy OF any court, is about using plaintiffs premises 10 90
work which can be done by the use OF me IreinSs OF e
first defendant whose wall Is to be repaired or made SAFE
the DEFENDANTS and the defendant Adams substantially
on the argument did not by counsel attempt {" eonTo
vert plaintiffs case. Tire first defendant substantially
alone contests but denies fact set up Ivy plain
tiY. Where, as in this case the facts are
sworn to distinctly and facts stated on which
the conclusions drawn arrived at, II seems 10 me
must take the sworn statements OF the and rest on
them. In this yiew, II there is anything IN the Ia"
that will admitting those facts compel c plaintiffs to
submit the wrong threatened. In constituting The law
appealed by t. defendants TO authorize TIE entry on
tire premises plaintiffs, ~ seems That II never In
tended authorize entry except the premises Oi
those who had notice OF the proceedings The whole
reading Of tho shows this II provides that when
parties neglect notice 10 do certain things The Court
may order them Done and in default The Commissioner
may enter the premises, &c, ana do them. On whose
premises 70 entefi That Of the party having
notice OF neighbOr. who has had no notice. and who
has no interest in Il and no duty TO performi
IL ia here sworn positively that the premises or tbe
plaintiff not necessary for this and that is not
denied should be- sorry 10 have to cite authority
Commissioner does not The argument assert 70
necessary for his use sacred to the nee % its owners
and protected from horned and useless forfeit
In addition TO m fact that the painth SHOWS hai
the DAMAGE cannot Ne made good. IL seems 10 me
that wheIo public officer In this case. without just
cause about asserting right 10 enter the promises OI
a aud take II Tor alleged pubic use MthouI
right or authority, an injunction Will lie.
Both sides have gled the constitutional night or the
state this properly, asedch side claims the lnte-
nCn Is but 10 that tho construction OF TIE
act above stated and the admitted fact that the properly
necessary for the Use claimed dispose of the case
The in motion lnust he continued with $40 COSTS.
&. A. Iunlle argued the motion Tor The plADtitsi W.
C. Whitney fOI the Superintendent Of Buildings; ". u
Bartlett Tor lie sam Printing Association.