The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-04-01
ANTI-RAPID TRANSIT.

THE INJUNCTION AGAINST The CONSTRUCTION
OF THE ROAD on THE EAST srps-ABorxxxr
BEFORE FUDGE LARREMoRE YESTERDAY
RUFUS STORY THINKS he WILL LOSE PILE
OF MONEY.
The complaint OF Rufus Story, who claims 70 be ths
owner OF Nos. and Water stree, in ans irjunctos
proceedings against the New York Elevated Railway
Company was recently published very fully In 81,
HzEALn Il will be ensenbersd that Mr. Story
alleges, among other things. thai the constructors
of,he Elevated road IN front OF ais properly IN Water
would greatly diminish the Of property
He also AYERS that the Rapid TRANSIT uaGer which
the New York Elevated Railroad Company claim the
right 10 build their extension the side Is ~.
constitutional Attached 10 the complaint the an
davts Of numerous properly owacrs along tho line
tho proposed road protesting against its eonsiruc-
,ion. The matter Up before Judge
Larremorc. IN the Court Of Common Pleas
yesterday, on . motion continue temporary
in,uncior already granted The plaintiff is represented
By Mr.. John T. Parsons and ex.Judge George y. CON-
stock, and the Elevated Railroad by Mr. G. DeIevaa.
exJudge Emou and vanderpoel MI Parsons
The fact 81 the construction and extension u the Es
waited road He then wen, on cite the Rapid Transit
stating thai the company under this act claimed
the right their through Water street.
Pear street. aud so on through the New Bowcry Coun
sci stated tina, this presents some OF the features
Patton case. He described minutcly the proposed
route, Aus SAID The action brought TO restrain ths
erection OF .he road IN Front street Counsel then
In the allegations contained the CON-
paint, including The grants under which plaintiff
claims .i,le TO the premises mentioned sir parsops
confined his remarks 10 an elaboration Of me silega.
uoas d she complaint. conlcndins that .he roaa was
unconstitutional 'hr the nose u the engines and ne
space DO occupied would De great anc rrcparabls
damage 10 plainuTs property. He stated that The
plaintiffs property worth 500, 800 snc that .hs
construction 81 the road would iepreciao tho value Of
his premises al icas, twenty Gve per cent
Several additional afdlvils read by Mr.. Parsons
and the opposing counsel claimed the right "a
reply. Judge Larrcnore ADJOURNED the further argu
ment until Tomorrow morning Some Of dcfcud
ants points were submitted, however, containing
the main aTgumenv to be used u VIII be con
tended, among other things, that II will be found
and intent 81 this Street act relating to the
cny OF New York, tinerent from the language and
Intent OF the Colonial Highway &C, applicable to Tho
couatry The latter maniiestly tho pubic
only easement II VIII be remembered thas
according 10 the Dutch law She Zee Of all roads anA
streets vested ~ Tho public or the State see Durham
vs. Williams, 81 y y. 25l.l And u will be found
tina, BY tho common law. down to the ,ims Of
shose statutes, provision was made for com.
pcnsaton 10 the owners Of land. whcn - was
taken for a highway. In providing for such compe,-
sa.lon the Coloniai Legislature seem clearly have
bad n mind "a. nantes, dls,inc,Iou which has por-
haps been TO some extent overlooked IN very recent
times, between The uses 81 . country road and shs
OF city street. the plain necessity Or vestna
in city town more absolute and exclusive title 10
the SOIL 81 ate streets han rs required Tor the pubs
| tho latter nothing necessary bu. right
| Of passage, but great city uses and asserts
tuc rHu' W use hUccts aytuE gas ppes, "htct
pipes and sewers under its SOIL Tor ampposts and 10:
telegraph limos above the surface: and the time has
| arrived when II needs 10 use them Tor I'm
proved methods 81 transporting persons ana
| properly. which &c develop It's growth. ror
all purposes tho distinction between the title OF
] the pubic and It's rights IN country road and
the title OF the city New York and It's rights it,
sarects IS very important II is argued, FUR
Their, thai Front street still.
mans IN the city, and that the plaintin has no titls
&c the soi. tne street adjacent TO his property.
rs further eontendcd that Il the defendants with
out right IN their appropriation Of this street.
the plaintiff shows NO peculiar injury TO him-
self winch would justify him In asking the
nterposition OF Court while the public the people OF
the state. make objection and 10 not complain OF
the alleged obstruction OF the public highway and tho
city OF New York. The local authority having charge
| Of The same, has expressed its consent
The rest OF the argument Is devoted 70 An analysis 81
the Rapid Transit act aud 1pon this point Is argued
that tho question whether the act known
the Rapid Transit act " private Or local
i bull which grants 10 particular corporation ths
right lay down railroad tracks. That question
is distinctly met by all the tribunals ana disposed Of
by holding thai she act referred 20 10 general act
| The condition Of the constitution which requires
either consent OF tie owners OF one-hAli of tho
properly bounded on tho street, Or the determine
ion OF commissioners, thai the railroad ough
70 DO constructed operated has been complied
/ with IN this case The proceedings before .ht
Commissioners, and in tho Supreme Court
have been before that court and have been
sustained npon the hearing BY the General Term, and
the validity OF the right claimed by The defendants 10
erect their railroad and run their Trains following
upon thcse proceedings and determinations 10 expressly
trial before Chief Justice Curtis In the Superior Court
| In conclusion u Is contended that the injunction
should be vacated, and the order to show dis.
charged, with costs.