Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-10-21
A GREAT WRONG R1eHrED

Visitors to New York are generally d
lighted with the speed and easy motion OF
the elevated railroads, but it is impossible
for them not to see at what terrible price OF
injustice the convenience is purchased The
roads commonly come up to the sidewalk on
one side OF the street, and thus block out the
light from the lower story of each adjoining
building, so that in the Bowery and other
important streets gas has TO be kept lighted
in the stores during the daytime just as it is
after shutdown. The occHpiers of the stores
can show none of their goods in fair, open
daylight, and when trains are passing they
commonly cannot hear their customers
speak. The rooms of the fret story can be
gazed into by the occupants OF the cars, a
thing that has to be submitted to or the oc-
cupants asphyxied by the want OF air
in the hst weather. Think of sleeping
in such a room with the temperature in the
nineties and the windows closed, or, if open,
of the sleepers on their beds being exposed TO
the gaze of tenants of the cars, and TO the
rush and noise of the passing trains. Such
are some, but by no means all the intolera-
BILE nuisances created by elevated railroads
in New York, 10 the depreciation OF the
money value of the miles of property in
jured by the existence OF the nuisances We
mention, yet the Legislature Of the State of
New York has been guilty of the wrong of
enabling the owners of these elevated roads
to infict these injuries without the consent
of the injured, and without compensation for
the injury done. What the Legislature SO
uuiustly neglected 10 secure to the occupants
and owners of the properly injured, hes
been sought for from the courts. Fer five
wears efforts have been making to secure
legal redress. The particular case Sc
lected was that OF Rufus Story, OF
No. 7 and No. Front street, New York, who
sued the railway company for damages IN
Aicled by inva ding bis rights to the street,
rights of which he had been deprived with
out compensation. The decision was hrst
against Mr.. Story, denying that he had
rights in the street or was injured so as 10
entitle him TO an injunction against the rail
way company. The case next went to the
Court OF Appeals and, on Tuesday las,
Judge Tracey pronounced the courts de-
cision, which was one that surprised The
lawyers, as it admits a property right IN a
street which cannot be taken away without
compensation being made. Legal opinion
generally was that no such right existed.
This gives the case interest outside OF New
York, and becomes precedent, quite In ac-
cordance with English common law, that
may prove OF Importance in other cases
The plaintiff, the court decided, owned prop
erty abutting upon street, he claims Il
have rights as that the city had guaranteed
that the land should remain an open street;
the law gives him a right to an open street
The columns upon which the railway
is placed interfere with the thoroughfsre
obscures the light, impairs the general use
fulness of the premises and depreciates thei
value; q structure had been built which il
repuguant to the uses of street as "opeD.
The extent to which what belonged ts'
plaintiff was taken Is not material, no par
of it can be taken without compensation
and "such q structure interferes with III
street pro tGnto and thus directly invade
the plaintiffs easement in the street." Til
constitutes taking of properly for publ
use and must be compensated for. TIL
court, in view of the serious consequence
TO the defendant, declined to grant an il
junction until the defendant has REASONABLE
time to come 10 an agreement with III
plaintiff. The defendants are the Ne