New-York tribune., 1880-01-09
THE RAPID TRANSIT SUIT.

STRIKING SCENES IN COURT
General Benjamin +. Butler completed the argu-
meut in the test brought by property-owners
against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway
Company before the General Term of the
Superior Court yesterday. great crowd
was In attendance. General Butler de-
voted himself to answering the arguments of
ex-Judgc Porter, made the day before. He SAID
that the roads were lawfully constructed, and
necessary but great injustice was done. aud consti-
tutioaal rights were Gisregarded unless every prop
erty-owner along the route was compensated tor all
property or every right Of which he was deprived
by the road. Much mcriiment was caused by some
OF the speakers wittcisins.
THE AUDIENCE AND TIE ARGUMENT.
The announcement that General Benjamin f.
Butler was address the Superior Court, General Term
In the case of Caro- against the Metropolitan Elevated
Railway Company had somewhat remarkable result
IL Is not uuusdal TO lind the c0urrOoms crowded when
interesting trial; but IL l. seldom that
there such rush OF spectators that the COURTROOM Is
hled TO the very s:eps of the bench and the
court officers obliged by main force to keen back the
crowd outside the doors determined 10 get in This was
actually yesterday ard II seemed roo, mat
those who came spectators we're drawn there more
by the desire hear the famous advocate than by III
terest IN the case important as 1t was. Most OF tie
listeners obliged stand, aud closely packed to-
gether they were to remain for more than two
a semicircle around the few chars In the md
die Of The General Butler spoke In his usual
Characteristic manuer-slOvly, deliberately-Ind ex-
ceptlng at two emphatic portions of the
address III low tone of voice In the midst or
some technical LEGAL argument he would throw
out an unexpected dry joke that would set the crowd
into roar OF laughter, and provoked something
more than smiles Om the d:gGih Judges on tie bench
The listeners appeared particularly TO enjoy each Int at
the expense of eXJudge Porter, especially when the
m by
positions had taken the dav before of his own
opinions argument on the Court OF Appeals bench
or as counsel in other Once twice the AdvO-
cate fOrsoOk his conversational method OF address and
poured forth loud ana full voice stream OF cloqucnce
about blindness of justice to ali the qucnce OF
hcr acts when taey were right and true When the
General left the courtroom covered with an immense
fu-oyerc0at king, one spectator said, like great
polar bear, more than score OF persons with more
curiosity than of dccency followed close on his
heels. pecrug ino his face and remarIng within his
hearing upon his personal pecudrtes. OF all this he
was apparently unconscious.
General Butler addressed the Court when Il convened
at O'Clock yesterday morning. III substance IN fol-
lows:
The close and carefully put argument Of my learned
associate and authorities he presented in its sup
port left very little for me to say But the course
which the discussion took aftcTWard to render 1t
necessary to call attention 10 certain matters
which, although believe them to be fundamental, for
the first time OF forty years practice have
heard brought into dispute; and also to remove some
OF the Impedmeuts which have been thrown In
the way by the learned counsel opposed to us. The
facts pleaded by US admitted. and the becomes
q pure question of law. To all else your HOnors are
blind. Ii it were permitted 10 open the eyes OF Justice
TO some of the of the respondent in this cause,
would gladly follow my learned opponent and say some
thing about few men getting together and g~abbng
this valuable franchise of citizens by the expeDd
I'M far he # from mp In
follow bid on example.
ANSWERING TIE FIRST OBJECTION.
The first objection which l thiuk It Is proper TO
answer In that this case has been decided by
this court, the Court OF Appeals, to
which the decisions OF this court go for revision
II this were SO IL would be my duty 10 fold
up such papers l have and quietly withdraw
for ought not ask this court which Is not final
court, for reheaiug. We admit that this is constitu-
uonal law authorizing the defendants to build an Gle
yated railway upon the street in front OF our dwellings,
and that ouch elevated railway IS 10 be built according
10 their VIII and pleasure TO tho manner Of Its con-
truction. The law provides no restriction whatever
Ii may be built posts or on solid structure one fo0
ten feet OF hundred feet hgb far the statute is
concerned Therefore tho law has lett the question
Of injuries To be determined, as the e1teFf
In which the road is built Nor does the
law make any restrictions as TO the manner ot operat
by an Increase of business. or by public necessity
which the only ground upon which 1t could b. built at
rant IN tins Constitution always under limitation of
See these Questions ha We not been decided before The
CbieJustc in delivering the opinion IN the case OF The
bert BERT Railway Company stated iRat the amount
and extent Of the damages we've questions not
before the Court and that the structure contemplated
to be butt would be an invasion Of the property abut
ting any OF the street and entitled the owners 20
damages In the case OF Earle too is SHOWN tha' sur
face roads may not be built except by puoic consent
and ask that TIE same principle be applied IN rcfer
The next point is the eOoa-aatrrcd ridcne with
wbch we have 0ee ATTACK ior haNlhS aptacu 10 tAe
equity slde uI te Court wrong uy ahI "ltsoN ctae'
by asking that this cause Should be euloincd when We
had compete, Gear anu HHequI@to @ IcmCH"S
consequences would follow any decision In favor;
that had occasion to b.ug ths suit until the rail-
road had nj ured u.s. ana ougAt tben 10 brg II AT com
law. An action Tor restraining nuisance Is not IN
party fears he viii be i1Jrsed That never granted
unless absolutely irremedlable injury is SHOWN Tor
winch compensation can be adequate, OF unless In
sOlvency and want OF ability 10 answer are aVcned
and proved Tlen OF course the Court Will not allow
upon question iairly raised, mans property 10 be
taken from him without compensation
This right is purely statutory right, Ii exists only by
law; II depends the law for its protection; II In
wolves no inquiry into fact II the right exists ihe
lot bring an action common law because the defend
have not completed their work. aud because they
have mortgaged their entire property 80 iar beyond lts
value that any execution against II wOud be IDLE aud
fruitess. That admitted by The demurrer. lL1ugh
teri THIS road first nortRaced for more than al II
cost build IT, as To deprive all the good ctzens OF
Ncw-York Of every possible remedy 1t was TIE ingenu-
ity the devil filtered through the brains OF lawyers
that devised such a scheme flaughterl
A POINT AGAINST JUDGE PORTER.
Ibe attack upon our pleading Is that the judg
ment must this road, which has turned OUT 10 be
very prOdab its promoters and OF great benefit 10
tho city must be stopped Does Mr.. Caro- deserve all
tbisi Ought he TO get the rough side OF lawyers
tongue for an hour aud half though he wanted 10
destroy the city rather Than smell Oh My learned
frend Judge Porter wishes make out that 1t Is the
srs time cour; Ofequity Orauy other court was asked
10 interfere OF nuisance by noise by smells or By
ng Icn
he was for the plaintiff in the the
Baptist Church Of schenectady against the Troy
Railway Company, In which 1t was pleaded that the
railway "dd annoy and modest the people worship