New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-04-06
THE COURTS.
RIGHTS OF THE ELEVATED Road.
EXTENDED ARGUMENT IN THE COURT OF COMING,


PLEAS.
The suit of John Patten, the proprietor Of
the Pacific HOTEL against the NewYOrk Elevated Ran.
road Company was argued yesterday before Chief JUS
tice DAILY on motion continue the injunction against
the defendants restraining the building Of turnout Cd
pose the plaintiffs premises The defendants presented
preliminary objection that the act Of 1867 under which
the defendants acted provided expressly that the S
preme Court alone should have power TO grant an In.
junction against item. This 1t was contended prevented
the Court Pleas from granting the injunction
prayed for IL it wasrightul, and Judge Brady had
decided that this section constitutional
Gen. Pryor argued at some length that any statute
overriding the right OF citizen to appeal to any
having general jurisdiction Of class OF questions in spe
cia matter within that class unconstitutional in itself
that this particular and the Of 1868 violated par
tcuar sections OF the Constitution az to tho title and
contents Of statutes and that If valid when passed. the
act OF 1873 extending the powers of the Court OF Com
mon had swept away the provisions Of the char
tiers of 1867 and 1868 in this respect.
ChefJustice DAILY, reserving his decision on the pre-
minary question, directed that the parties argue the
main question.
Counsel for Mr. Patten argued that his title antedaed
the opening Of the street. and Notwithstanding the open
ing of the street. the fec In 1t subject to the Of the
street for street purposes remained In the adjoining
owners The defendants without right OF claim Of right
had undertaken ntrUde this property, to break
into plaintiffs vaults, and build switch turnout for
their road shown by the long continuance OF tie road
such turnout to be unnecessary The acts "
1867 and 1868 were unconstitutional In giving private
property without compensation, but they in any
ease exhausted they gave but five years 10 complete
road. The road itself nuisance, and could he
stopped whenever it injured a private individual
Counsel for the road IN Oppos ton claimed tnat Green
wicl-st having been opened since 1897 the prop
erty of the city and not OF individual. and claimed
tat the acts Of 67 and 1858 had been revived and
tnued by later aos that the elevated railroad not
a nuisance and that ore but Mr.. Patton made any
such objection. The other questions went substantially
TO the building OF any rapid transit ne and had been de-
cded in favor OF the defendants and over again.
Gen Pryor in reply conended that the plantin under
his deeds bad little the soil OF Green wchs to hecen
ter the street, and this being that Is the Company
ran track from the center within IL feet OF the hotel
obsructlng his doors and making his property useless
hotel purposes the proper remedy was an injunction.
Again. il the plaintiff had the fee or tiie sDl unless
the defendants had legal authority 10 construct the turn
out, tney committing nuisance, and any ono sis-
tanning special damage entitled To an Injunction On
the tutonal question: contended that the laws
of 367 and 1865 and -7j impaired private nights With
out ana the law OF 1873 was obnoxious 70
the objection that Il amended a law without citing the
amended portion.
Chief ustico DAILY reserved his decision.