New-York tribune., 1876-08-05
powered and left the island by the boat for NowYork
which was "a. the wharf
THE COURTS.
LE BROOKLYN BRIDGE UPUELD.

THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE UPHELD.
JUDGE JOHNSON IN THE UNITED Stains CIRCUIT
COURT DENIES THE INJUNCTION ASKED FOR BY
A.. D. MILLER.
In the case of Abraham B. Miller against the
Cites OF NewYork and Brooklyn and the trustees OF tho
East River Bridge. Judge johnson. in the United States
Circuit Court Equity Branch has denied the motion for
injunction against stretching the wires or tine bridge
the river The decision In part is as follows:
The plaintiff in this suit is citizen OF the State OF
Newfork and the defendants are the municipal cofpor
certain other individual citizens Of state This
therefore derives jurisdiction from the citizenship OF
roversy bct%ean s ezns Of dcfent States tat afis
dicon Is conferred upon the ground OF the citizenship OF
ter OF the snit to sssia me jurisdiction Inc Circuit
concurrent with the courts OF the several states OF all
suits OF evil nature common law, in cq1y, aris-
ing under the Constitution and laws of the United states,
or treaties made or to be made under their authority
The claim oi the plaintiff is that the proposed bridge
the East River between the cities Of NcwiOrk and
Brooklyn VIII be public nuisance, from wnch he VIII
suffer particular private injury other thaa the common
injury which every citizen suffers from public nuisance
Now il the bridge will be public nuisance II must be
because 1t will violate the law OF NewiOrk or that OF
York the plaintiff cannot come into this court. He and
the deiendats are citizens of Newlork and he must
dcton in that behalf between citizens of the state
Is no, conferred upon the circuit Courts OF 'g 1neJ o
Newlork sues corporation and citizcas OF w-fork.
court, the iurlstetional dihculty avoided
by the existence cause OF for violation 81
the law of NpwIOrk. On neither ground, nor on bo'h
combined. can this court entertain jurisdiction.
The inquiry il therefore whether BY the Constitution
laws OF the United States the bridge IN pn"sioH "i
he public nuisance aud especially injurious tu the pan
tif III upon inquiry it shall he found ihat Tie bridge III
question being but conformity with and not IN vo-
laon of the Constitution ana laws Of the United States
then no court OF the United states TcgaG as pup
lie nuisance, nor interfere with its construction.
Judge Johnson then cites at length the laws OF the
United States AMI Of the State OF NeTiork to show that
the spAeifcaons for building the bridge have been con-
formed TO- and that az the work is directed by specific
acts OF Congress it cannot bo held rs nuisance or an
obstruction to navigation. He adds:
have ght il worth while to advert to the very
Indirect interest 0f the plaintiff the question involved
He ia not interests In navigation directly
He Is warehouse keeper, and the more vessels mat
his warehouses the better are bis chances
getting business Whether an Obstruction hclo" hhl
VIII be an injury benefit when the Hell Gate CHANNEL
is cleared is at least prObmatical. Nor has ~ seemed
necessary notice the delay OF years during wbieh
several millions have been expended IN the bridge while
the planiG conld have proceeded to present the
question for judicial consideration. In conclusion VII
add that have treated tie papers hled by toe piaith
as bill in equity though 1t Is in FORM complaint ~ a"
These defects OF form wOId have warranted the rrhsa
To issue process upon the pleading BILL o sustained
"A lake OF the neS, or refusal 10 grant an
Injunction upon il the party otherwise entitled 20
tnat relief have however thoughti better 10 CONSIDER
and place my decision upon the merits Oi the question
involved taking notice of the general defects only tlt
they may receive the apparent sanction OF silence
The motion for an injunction must b. denied