The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-06

the land held by the original grantee Last week the
defendant proceeded to build turnout and switch and
made excavations into the REALTORS vaults under The
sidewalk, and the Injunction got 10 restrain them
IRON further cncroachments He contendcd further
that the acts OF 1s67-S unconstitutional that
the time for constructing the road expired In 1873 aud
at all events made provisions for the turnout that
the road was nuisance with the smoke OIL &c, and
had given no notice OF the taking OF the realtors
land Tor the turnout, ana had made provisions TO
assess damages under the Gepera Railroad act OF $50
Mr. Mathews, IN reply, said this action struck al the
whole principle OF rapid transit. After millions OF
money spent and a road run from tho Battery TO
Central Park, and AFTER nine years Mr. faten found
transit they might as well pull down their railroads..
The tact was, II had been specially held under the
acts Of ls67s, the land in thai vicinity belonged
10 the city, Every allegation cf wrong IN any way Is
met by tho defendants opposing papey, and
IN such case an injunction cannot be upheld Ito
here quoted a decision OF Justice Seldom, 10 New
York as TO the title streets opened nom $50. to
18l3 beng entirely vested in the Corporations also
we,morcy vs.. story, % Barbour He submitted ati.
davts showing that the road not nuisance. that
no ono but Mr.. Paten making an objection 10 the
numerous turn outs constructing at various points
run every ten instead OF every twenty minutes, anu
thus making rapid transit success.
Mr. Pryor, who next addressed the Court spoke
the act The people, no SAID, had no
business 10 invade the rights OF citizens under
the pretence OF public convenience The question was
whether the plaintiff exhibited legal right or legal
wrong properly rcmedied by the injunc,ive relief
The plaintiff impcached The validity OF the act
under which the defendant claimed TO be Incorporated
aud held that Il was only incorporated under the
General Railroad act OF 1850 No obstruction OF rapid
transit sought by plaintiff He only asked to en-
join additional new rcspass the construction OF tho
turnout opposite his premises. Defendants operated
their road for years without turnout which " an
additional track by which the can swing from
It's main track to the other side OF the street
feet OF the plaintiffs window whistllng screaming and
dropping Its oil aud obstructng tho hight of
his hotel, practically destroying his property
and making II vaueess for hotel purposes.
He argued that II this be illegal and unauthorized
clearly incts special Injury Tor which an inJunc-
ton Is a proper remedy The records proved the
plaintiff to be the fee OF the lot from the CEN
OF street TO the river An attempt was MADE 70
take his property for public use without &c. compensa,
ground up tho middle of the street, unless the de-
iendants had authority OF law they were creating
public nuisance and II any sustained special damage
he was entitled injunction. He then TOOK up the
consutonality Of the act under which the defendants
are the court 'has Of nc us q Pleas
OF its ancient honorable and bencnccnt Jurisdiction,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL because being private bill with
only subject It's ttle whereas II contained three
separate subjects The actof 1868 likewise he claimed
TO be UNCONSTITUTIONAL because II expressed two sub
jects in the title Supposing, however, both TO be con-
pred October 1874 To overcome these difficulties an
act passed in 1875, which, however, was unavail-
ing
After showing the alleged unconstitutonaty Of this
act he urged in conclusion that the Court should exert
its injunction to intercept that unspcakable out
rage contemplated by the defendants.
Alter bret rcjoinder by Mr.. Mathews, Judge Daily
took the various briefs OF counsel and the other papers
Tor examination preliminary to giving his decision.
GREENWICH STREET AGAINST RAPID TRANSIT.
The large dining hall OF the Pacific Hotel, No 172
Greenwich street, crowded last evening with the
enemies OF the Elevated Railroad. The German ele-
OF the Fifth and Eighth wards was largely repre-
sented and might almost have been thought, TO wit
the Teutonic indignation against modern invasion
OF old notions, that the first settlers Of Manhattan
Island had again the to sturdly assert
their preference for old customs. Mr. Edward Heath
took the chair at halfpast eight O'Clock, and Mr.. G.
wolverton acted secretary. The first reference by
Mr. Andrew Little to the injunction proceedings
detailed above and the argument made by counsel
OF the property The various committees
made reports in writing TO the meeting which were
read as folows:-"0n Ninth avenue, IRON about tho
wers called upon and ,hirty-seven names Of
real estate owners who agreed to take at once active
MEANS and to submit 10 assessments Tor the purpose
OF testing their rights In the courts from the lowest TO
the highest signed In their report It stated
that they were sufferers by the Elevated Railway from
their stores and dwellings, the shaking Of their build
inas by the passage Of the trains the dropping OF oil
and refuse on the sidewalks, and general injury to
Mr. Andrew L,ttic, chairman OF tho committee OF
the Third ward, stated that he mad called on fifteen
property owners, who had unanimously agreed TO be
assessed for tho purpose OF abatng the nuisance now
existing their real estate had deprecated about forty
per cent since the running Of he trains on the Ec-
waited road.
Mr. Patrick +. Lyons OF the Fifth ward, reported
that he held his hand thrtytwo names OF business
and property owners who agreed TO stand by the
opposition 10 further encroachmenis German real
estate declared that he was not opposed TO rapid
transit, but opposed to his property being ruined
without compensation. The committees were
tnued the same announced IN the HERALD-Messrs
Cheny, Duny, Little, Graham, Lyons, Pollock Patten,
Kelly and Dolman--for the purpose OF further action
alter the injunction decision shall be announced.