New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-02-11
nEEEAT OF 4 BROOKLYN sCHEME.

An ADVERSE DECISION RENDERED Ely TIE GENERAL
TERM IN THE KINGS COUNTY ELEVATED RAIL
ROAD CASE.
The General Term of the Supreme Court
sitting In Brooklyn yesterday rendered an Important
decision IN the case OF the Kings County Elevated Rail
road Company. This company was organized by a
RAND Transit Commission. appointed by Mayor Howell
IN 1873 under the Rapid Transit act ana was given the
right 20 construct elevated roads over the whole or
parts OF certain streets. including oil the principal
horonghfares OF the city The consent OF the Common
Council the construction OF the roads was obtained
about year ago, but the consent OF the property
owners along tho several proposed routes. which was
necessary before the rOdus couu DO Cohs'uc'cu' was
not given.
The Rapid Transit provides that the approval OF
the General Term Of the Supreme Court may be obtained
"a "A substitute the consent or tho property
xnd under this provision the company secured the
appointment by the General Term OF Thomas H. Still
man James A. Hewlett and s. b. Barlow, ms commits
soners to take testimony IN the matter The commits
soner report was favorable TO the company and it was
confirmed IN June last by Judges Gilbert and Dykman
Of the General Term Judge Barnard dissenting Judge
Gilbert however wasin Europe when the decision was
announced. and the Court OF Appeals before
which tho case carried. decided that
the General Term was not properly constituted.
and sent report back to be rcargued The second
argument was heard In Brooklyn. In December, by
Judges Barnard, Pratt and Gilbert Ihrr declSlo was
handed down II was written 10y Judge
and ia adverse To the company dissenting opinion
was written by Judge Gilbert
Judge Pratt In his opinion says that on one or the
streets over which che company u gwen me rght 10
ud an elevated road property Of the assessed value OF
SO 100000 Ia situated. and doubtless moro thar
$4,000 900 I'm value Of real estate would BE lmincd
afey and most seriously affected b. the construction al
The entire railway aid out by the commissioners.
I'm some cases time whatever H. liked Tor us cOmpr
ZION thus giving the company the whole period OF lts
chartered life I'm which 10 out the plan proposed
The c9ruOratOn has, Ia fact the option literally 90 grid
iron City OF Brooklyn with structure sufficiently
strong and cumbersome Tor freight railway IL may
impair the property; IL will emOarrass II not prevent
rival enterprises, ana thus fOist upon TIE community
nil fie evils of gigantic monopoly. 10 Is questionable
N thr achUne proposed would bee public improvements
ncreforr II the Court satisfied that the injury To he
Inflicted upon private property and rights Is 80 great
and wile prrad to clearly ONcrhIladce all possible
brnenf, To 6c derived from It's construction, then con-
nrmai!On must be refused.
Inc opinion concludes as follows: " As this - a mat
ter al great puhic concern deem not Improper To
s4y tnat we fully alive 10 the need al RAPID transit
p This ctty and anxious that its ciz rs may ENJOY all
ia advanta got the earliest practical moments out
we cannot ncquescc In Wholesale surrender OF 80
many important highways TO 30 burdensome struc
turp and IL allowing the petitioner nnctynine years IN
when TO finish IT, unaccOmpancd with auy terms for
he benefit security OF the public aud private interests
involved" - ~, --,--
l. LOwrey Brooklyn lawyer, who ~ one or the direc-
for. of tie Kings County Company, that the company
would certainly carry The case to the Court OF Appeals