Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-07-07
MRS. BIGELOW'S CASE.
IL is Argued in the United states
COurt.

Court.
Judge Ross attention was occupied
yesterday in hearing arguments in the
case of Mrs. NJ. L. Bigelow VS.. the City
| of Los Angeles, to obtain an injunction
stopping work on the First street bridge.
Mrs. Bigelow was represented by
Messrs. Wells, Guthrie & Lee, Judge
Hutton and Mr.. Swanwick. City Attor-
ney Mcfarland, j. H. Chapman, the
Gable Company's attorney, and Judge
Rearden, attorney for the California
Bridge Company, appeared for the de-
| fendant.
An affidavit by Ars. Bigelow, in which
she said that she was born IN Great
Britain, and came to the United States
after she reached the age OF 21 years, was
read. She alleged that she has never
been naturalized. and is single woman.
She stated that she is the owner OF the
property on the corner OF Center and
| First streets, and that she erected two
story brick building on said property,
the first floor of which was to be used as
store rooms, and the upper portion ss q
boarding house ; and that she had rented
the building for the purposes named
She further alleged that the city OF Los
Angeles had done great injury to her
property by constructing viaduct and
bridge directly in front of her premises,
causing her tenants to vacate the building,
and rendering it useless for the purposes
for which it was constructed. She
claimed that the viaduct occupies the
entire width of First street with the
exception OF eight feet on either side /;
that the light in her building is o istruet-
ed thereby, and that dust is blown from
the bridge to the detriment Of contents
of the building.
Hon. w. H. Workman, N. E. Davis.
son, George Cummings and j. M. Harris
made an affidavit to the effect that the
crossing at the Santa Fe Company's
tracks is dangerous; that the
| bridge is an absolute necessity
for the protection OF the people; that to
the unsettled and torn-up condition OF
First street for some time past can be at
tributed the difficulty experienced by
plaintiff in securing tenant; that the
| light is not obstructed ,and less dirt is Car
RED to the premises than before the erec'
ton of the bridge. They stated that
ample space is left for teams and pedes-
trians to gain access to the building, and
they believed that business will not be
| injured, and the construction OF the via.
duct will accrue to the benefit ct Mrs.
Bigelow.
j. w. Drown and Charles Bell affirmed
that Mrs. Bigelow is not the owner OF
any interest in the property claimed by
her.
After the reading of affidavits. ETC., G.
Wiley Wells began the argument for the
plaintiff by reading decisions on cases of
a similar nature He cited case against
one of the New Yoik elevated roads in
which an Injunction was granted on the
ground that the bridge or structure was
an obstruction to light, and that dust and
dirt accumulated on the viaduct and was
carried into the houses and stores by the
jar of passing trains. He explained that
the road in New York was 80 constructed
as to allow of wagons passing directly be-
meath and through it, being merely iron
pillars erected on either side Of the road
way and connected with arches, leaving
the street comparatively clear, while the
viaduct under construction on First
street occupies nearly the entire width OF
the street in front of Mrs. Bigelow's s
property. Damages were awarded in
the New York Case. Other cases were
cited in which judgment had
been given for property damaged
| by the construction Of bridges, railroads,
ETC., and argument made tbat the City
| Council should have assessed the damage
to Mrs. Bigelow's property before be-
ginning the construction of the viaduct
| Judge Chapman, arguing on behalf of
the city, held that Mrs. Bigelow's rem
edy, If she had any, was at law instead
of by an injunction. That she was
entitled to damages he denied. She had
alleged thai her property would be
damaged by reason of the diverting of
travel, which, when the old bridge stood
across the river passed her premises. Mr.
| Chapman claimed that this was not a
cause for damages. The Supreme Court
had decided that 1t was not special in-
jury. He cited several decisions to sus.
tain his position. The only Limitation
made in such cases was to the effect that
access to the property should not be pre-
vented. Mrs. Bigelow had not alleged
that access to her property had
been cut off. She had asked
that the old bridge be put back
over the river, but Mr.. Chapman did not
think the Court would go so far as to di-
rect the city what should be done with
its streets. The city had right to take
down all its bridges. and it had taken
this one down. She had also alleged
that there would be an increase of dust
and noise, but Mr.. Chapman said that
| this could not be determined until the
viaduct had been used, and then it
would not be a cause for damages.
If the Court stopped the work
the city would be forced to go into court
and allege that there would be damages,
just what was denied in this case. An
other reason Judge Chapman thought
the United States Court should not act
in this matter was that the same case
was now under consideration by the
Supreme Court Of the State.
Judge Ross indicated that it seemed
curious to him that two courts should be
called upon to decide the same case with
the same points, and it was his impres.
sion that the first court in which the case
was brought acquired jurisdiction.
Judge Hutton, for Mrs. Bigelow, read
several decisions which he held sustained
his position, that Mrs. Bigelow was en-
titled to an injunction. In the midst of
his argument, the Court adjourned until
Monday morning at IL O'Clock.