New-York tribune., 1876-06-30
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
RAPID TRANSIT OBSTACLES.


rHs ARGUMENT FoK THE GkEENwIcH STREET ROAD
BEGUS-rHE ARGUMENT AGAINST Tiik GILBERT
ELEVATED RAILROAD CLOSED.
The testimony in the suit of the Ninth Ave-
nue. Railroad Company against the Hew-fork Elevated
Railroad Company tine Greenwich Street Railroad was
supposed closed Wednesday, but the defendants
reca cd one their witnesses yesterday to show tue po
and purpose of the turIouts, winch led to cross
examination prolonged for nearly an hour EX-JudIe
Emott then began his argument for the Elevated Rail
road. He briefly dismissed va.ioIs matters which
had been raised during the u-dl, the discussion
of the rights OF prOpcrtyowners along the streets
q matter 40. pertinent 10 this suit the excessive
love OF the plaintiffs for rapid transit in any manner
mo- af citing tcir interests, which he thought he need
not discuss, the question Of whether tho Greenwich
Street road was tue best kind OF rapid transit which
had been judciay settled by tue Commissioners ex-
pressy appointed 20 on that question, which was
not open discussion here. The battle the same as
had been waEed througl Of vested interest trying
to retain its monopoly The evidence simple. 1t
was taat new horses, BADLY treated, were sometimes
frightened by the dummy engines hut ON the other hand
rghy treated they became at once used to them, and
ceased to be alarmed by Their Passage and that was
hardly important.
Passing the law questions Mr.. Emott claimed that
tLa defendants incorporated by valid legislation,
and derived through foreclosure all the granted
to the West Side and Yonkers Patent Railway Company
by acts 1867 and 1869 the structure III
use concerned These acts authorized switches and
t1rDOuts. The motive power had been changed from
stationary engines 10 locomotives. All this before
tao act Of 1879. The Of The Judges O: the
Common Pleas, General Term, that all this must be
done in FIVE years. But top of those acts
came the act Of 1875, and the question was,
What the effect of tnat acti Mr. Emott
combatted at length the grounds on which
ChiefJuslice DAILY decided the of Paiten against
tire defendants, claiming that ~ TO onePhiths eh III
the street.-The @, neral Tenn had directly ONclrulSl
Judge DAY. and rs to the oihef-that the act 0 lsI2
was -ChiefJstice DAILY ana the Geh lal
Term were both MI taken, snce lhe power 10 operate
road included the power to bHd ana ol"id,e necesS &
switches and urnOuts. The Ninth Avenue Railroad h"1
simply right amounting 10 heeiisei uot rlen. ol
possession, hut rigt Of use ~ the streets ana so
the de ehdaIis acts dd Aut III aue any run % w - III
plain III and even II the defendants were creating pun
lac n,dsdm the pamtbs were not entitled To sue 10 pr
vent They lad tailed o. show any special damage me
only person to bring the sut ts !te Atoihey
No lrIeparabe damage 81 own TIE dcfendanS Had
built upon out Of tbe avenue iapd transit IOdd
response To public demand II 49,. 10,
T. n Bangs began his LIn,nt IN reply, nut nad
barey stated the III his Wow hen the Court ad-
journed He will close his argument Today ,,,. ~. ,
The argument OF * Judge COmstoCk II OehaH or me
sixth Avenue Railroad Company agamst the Gilbert
Elevated hallway Company was hhshSu ytst'u' -, i't
hupaIIor Count Special Tem Jude sedgwIek Tes,rl le
hisdrcison EN-Judge ComstocA reviewed the MsI-
ments previously presented tha the slAV hNtuuc lI
road Company had an ucOrIoret iEt Which "as P!op-
erty. which could not he invaded WITHOUT eOmpelh@Go1 @
uHder eiLer the State or Federal SOhsttduch' Vna. @
this right was "A right 10 the space III the scet ne es,IS
ior the fail carving out OF thelr itahths' t.'l 1n
right was invaded physlca'y alu -, ~ T. % 10
posed Gilbcv Elevated Railway structure DOth 1t be
and above the tack thU tuv Lelsldt uc VI bo
sats d not authorize this elevated road. and u dd
was uneOnstitutiouaI that IT Mas Wcons iiuton"l us
taxing away tue street from the puOHc; IL WIS
otsiltu. iunal af, ctHE private nights Inc
charter of the Gilbert road permitted no such trc
IRE as now prupoSed IT, Rapid Transit act
permitted no such route as pro- osed. lie argue
ht length that the Rapid Transit act l'eh
WAS unconstitutional violating the intent Uf the Con
sttutOn tat spcca charter should Do gwen DS ueIe
atug TO local boards tLc power to ave SPECIAL ,ffJcls
Tine legislature bad made "A ncia ltWi al
that was general the improper delesduCn % power
All the rest Ma local and. special -,
TIE SUIT Brought 10y oXJudgc Freedman aSaii'sl the
GrecnWchst. road to prevent the use Of dummy ,Sits
anon that road, il set down argument btioe Judge
htugwlck, IN Superior Court special Term, to-ddy.