The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1885-12-04

og5nefaz Eaf'E IefaA D4A ~ P5AtFs @5-' '@s@
ing.
A correspondent d oar ..loeal eoateraI,o-
rary. who. frosa his xii IN the ne of the
Oaeen-s EaglssB " sE0uld jndge capable
n l,et.er rezso1.tng than be shows takes
the MoxlTog and IL eosrespof.deBt of =
week or two ago 70 task fof their EXPIRE
non 81 opinion On tie I1eaS n q.to.
We w5H elde4Ygr IN future. If ''Bor-
oagh viii give NJ his name and addresr.
to consult him ~ ~ what NC maY ~ may
not say On tlse subjees. n - lad told Us
before We penned gar former editorial that
il was -.i1eh, ~ 7ould probably have
SUPPRESSED i az oncs-and then again We
rnlghtnt. sBof0ugh gays thzt -of the
sp4ee between building. a TIE corners 81
Eass zyeuue. y fset aid 3 fraction come II
tie Riley properly II this i BIZ under
standing If the testimony At the trial.
Il simply shows that he Is incapable Of
drawing any correct inference o. conclusion
from that trial, and - far a lie u concerned,
the efforts ofeourt, jury and learned counsel
have bsen utterly wasted. All the evidence
agreed that the old Risley store vas the
south side NJ old Ballet lane. Tire Risley
deed Of 1903 gO<s only 10 tie .onth zids Of
HAT lane. No subsequent deed can legally
70 further. Tie measurements Oh the
Main street front agree With this statement.
Vow the north wall u the Risley store 8as
% fe,sf from tie north val II EWalf Rich
mans house. Whrn the Old store was
tom down this Is feet WAS thrown ont -
the public. and is ~ ne I7sg lqnd tint
ezsr ssus so hro,cu osa, aud 16t feet Of that
already belonged 70 the pubiicif the claim
Of three rod road be sustained. and had
10 belonged since lszD. ''Boro1gh" should
look up liz arithmetic and review the tes-
tinony in tie case before be writes again
This ~ feet and fraction" shrinks terri
big under the measuring line. But sup
pore ii icqz - feet--we will let Borough"
have his 0mn way about it--what differ
euce? Let it come from what source it
will. and from whichever original owner,
ii nov belongs 70 the public, a. DOES every
f,ot Of land in the length and breadth Of
East avenue which has oBce been thrown
out 70 public use. aud tue original Owners
have Ne more concern with il Or control
over Il. except IN common sirii the general
public q, a highway. 'lian Adam the first
and wlcIi Borough pratlles about
property rights, IT, at once shows his
ignorance and aasles his ammunition.
There are 10 property rights in ques-
ton 80 far a. relates 70 the used portion Of
the avenue; the only question of that kind
being a. 70 the ground occupied By the
cellsrway, which question j. not yet set
tied, although Borough seems disposed
10 assume that it is--perhaps for the sake
Of his argument, which stands in need Of
nome bolstering up. East avenue as it is,
belongs to the public for purposes Of travel.
II II he to the public advantage that
greater space shonld be taken for foot tray
elers than is now occupied for that purpose
the public have right 10 app0rtion the
rOad-bed az they choose. II convenience,
or beauty, or any other reason calls for the
Strengthening Of the curb line and uni
form width Of carriage-way the length Of
the avenue. at the same time giving an in
creased width Of sidewalk the public
by their seryants-we had nearly written
owners-the Council, have right to it.
The M0xIToR said and repeats that this
should be done in tile case in point, re-
gardless Of the celarway, thus making the
roadway Of uniform width, the sidewalk
more spacious, and the curb line straight
line. instead Of the crooked eye sore it now
is. There seems 10 be no difficulty about
the property owners on the avenue above
the Richman and Ilaines property setting
their shade trees and extending their curb
line about two feet further ont than their
neiglbors below, but when it is suggested,
that this be done elsewhere Borough"
and his party 60 into spasins Of righteous
wrath The MoYIToR. if itbas not already
said 50, says now that ii the thing sug-
gested had been done when it might have
been done the present expensive litigation
would have been obviated, as the public
would have had as wide sidewalk at the
corner as will be gained By removing tile
cellarway and that this digging up an
ancient record from the grave where it had
lain forgotten for nearly two generations,
while ali unsuspecting purchaser had IN
vested his money and made improvements
when East avenue was yet a siane, to sat
isfy public necessity more technical than
material, (because tie public without det-
riment to itself could have had It's necessity
provided for otherw se) at cost Of public
money utterly ont Of proportion TO tile
value received, savors more Of personal
spite than Of due regard for the best in
terest of the community, and no other out
come of the pending suit VIII in anywise
affect this view of the the cas- --atd Dor
,ugh' can make the most OF it.