Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1883-10-06
TINE BAY WINDOW CASE.
Another Dey spess In ArGumen,
Before the ChsncelIOr.

AnOtn0f Doy spent In Argumel
u Before the Chancellor.
Proceedings were resumed yesterda
v before the Court of Chancery IN tn
It case Of Charles +. Thomas and John n
z Whitford, vs. Samuel H. Baynard. I'll
K complsinants were represented b
v George H. Bates and Austin Harm.
J. ton, Esqs. and the defense was conduci
}, ed by William g. Spruance, Esq, a.
= sisted by Charles NJ. Curtis, Esq.
l. Mr.. Harrington read protest agains
, the plans Of the building that had beef
k sent to MIR. Baynard by Charles +
o Thomas & Company, John NJ. Whit
ford, manager and trt asurer of til
4 Every Evening Publishing Company
0 Meyer Meyers, Samuel M. Culbert, An
3 drew Traynor, Emile Bucher, Edward
L. Taylor, secretary Of the Banking
3 House Corporation, Nathan Liebermar
) and others, accompanied by an affidavi
! OF Charles F. Thomas setting forth that
he had sent the protest to the datend-
ant on June z, and that receiving 10 re
ply he wrote him = letter July 10, and
afterward called upon him Al his place
OF business.
|, The deponent, when informed that
, the defendant proposed to continue ac.
cording to his plans, told him that il
would necessitate legal contest and
that the defendant replied that he was
willing to risk this, as he thought he
had "a fighting chance" The depo-
nent also affirmed that he had repeated.
ly protested.
The affidavit of John NJ. Whitford
was read setting forth that he had never
authorized the defendant to represent
to City Council that he would not
make any objection to the building be-
Ing constructed according to the plans,
but on the contrary that he had always
objected to the bay windows he also
denied that any assent had ever been
given through him, by the Every Even
ing Publishing Company.
he further stated that as he was in
doubt in regard to the intentions of the
defendant, he inquired of him on the
18th Of September II he still intended
to build bay windows on the lower
floor, and upon receiving an affirmative
answer, Informed him that he would
enter suit.
The AFFIDAVIT of Joshua 7. Heald was
read, stating that Fifth street was a
public highway, and that it was high
ly important that 1t should be preserved
free from distractions, and that in the
opinion Of the affiant the de-
fendant's building, AZ 1t is be.
ing constructed, is serious obstruc.
tion. Allen Speakman, Thomas NJ.
Ogle, Fl. B. Cobb and F. C. q. Green
man 4 Co. subscribed to an affidavit
setting forth that the proposed bay
windows would obstruct the sidewalk.
and seriously interfere with the passage
of persons along the street.
Evans Pennington's affidavit stated
that the rev building is situated in a
thickly settled part of the city, and |
that the travel along the streets in that
locality is SO great that the legal width
OF the sidewalk Is often found to be too
narrow, that Shipley street is growing
in Importance as a business street that
Fifth street is one of the main links
connecting it with Market street, and
that the bay windows as proposed
would be a material obstruction 10
public travel. Emile Bucher made affi-
davit that they were seriass cb rug.
ton to his light and view. Meyer
Meyers thought that bay windows were
a detriment to the general interest of
the city, and John G. Baker
that Fifth street had already narrow
sidewalk. that the proposed improve
ment was a serious encroachment on
the rights Of the people, and that the
city paid for the street beds from build.
ing line to building line, and that the
public was entitled to the use of that
space. Henry +. Dure's affidavit con-
Cured in that of Mr.. Baker.
This closed the atfidavits on the part
Of the complainants, and Mr.. Spruance
stated to the Court that the affidavit of
Mr.. Baynard, which was read on the
previous day, had been converted into
an answer, which he presented. He
said that it was 10 feet from Market
street to Shipley street, and contended
that the bay windows that his client Is
erecting are not an obstruction to public
travel.
He also offered the affidavit of Will
liam ii. Robinson. stating that in his
opinion the new building would be q
great improvement to the city, and that
sven ai,er the bag windows are COM
pleted, the sidewalks will be wider than
they were when the old building was
that none Of the projections
are az much an obstruction as those of
the Every Evening Publishing Com.
pany on Fifth street, or the building of
Il. Thomas & Company on Market
street.
John w. Hawkins, James G. Pickels,
Robert B, Mcdonnell, Edgar A. Fin
ley, William Il. Jetferis, James j.
w yatt and Henry G. Porter made affi-
lavits that the proposed windows would
not materially obstruct the sidewalk,
and that they would not impede the
public travel Benjamin S. Clark de.
posed that the ,jewelry business is the
most lucrative during the months of
November and December William II.
Foulk, the contractor for the building,
sta ed in his affidavit the manner in
which the proposed windows were to be
constructed that the passageway IN
Market street would be three feet wider
than the old building allowed, and six
inches wider than the next door proper
ty of Mr.. Thomas, or any other proper
ty In the same square; that the passage
way on Fifth street would be three feet
nine inches wider than it was before
the old building was torn down, and
one foot wider than in front of any 9TH
er property between Market and Ship
ley street.
Mr.. Harrington opened the argument
by citing a number of instances where
applications for injunctions in cases of
railroads had been granted, also of OBJ.
in New York harbor, and