Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-10-18
A STREET CAR DISPUTE.
Suit Involving the Right TO the Penn and
Seventh Avenue Crossing-The Decision

Seventh Avenue Crossing-The Decision
is Reserved.
An argument was had before Judges Stowe
and Slagle yesterday afternoon on the motion
for preliminary injunction in the case of the
Citizens and Allegheny Traction Companies
against the Federal Street and Pleasant VAL
ley Railway Companies. Attorney James Reed
appeared for the traction companies and ID. i.
Watson, ESQ.,, for the Federal Street and Pleas
ant Valley Company. The matter referred to
in the papers in the suit is the crossing at Penn
avenue and Seventh street, though the real
point at issue, it was developed, is the rights OF
the Federal Street and Pleasant Valley Rail-
way Company and the Allegheny Traction
Company, under their respective arrangements
with the Citizens Traction Company.
The Federal Street and Pleasant V alley line
first made an agreement with the Citizens line,
whereby the latter was to construct tracks
from Smithfleld street down Sixth avenue to
Liberty street, to Seventh street. to the North
side bridge, and maintain them. the Federal
Street line to have the right to use them. In
return they were to construct double tracks
from the Northside bridge up Sandusky street
to Church avenue, the Citizens line to have
the privilege of using them.
Subsequently the Citizens Company leased
the downtown portion of the old Transverse
line, including the Seventh street portion, to
the Allegheny Traction Company.
Mr.. Reed, in presenting his case 20 the court,
read the bills of the Citizens and Allegheny
Traction Companies alleging that the Federal
street and Pleasant Valley Company was about
to tear up the tracks on Seventh street and
Penn avenue, and relay them to suit them
selves, without authority from the Citizens or
Allegheny Company, and asking for an in
junction to restrain them. He submitted
afidaVits from Superintendent Cotton, of the
Pittsburg,. Allegheny and Manchester line,
r 81 1.v.A .I
others, showing that the crossing at Seventh
street was good one and similar to the one at
Sixth street and Fem avenue.
Mr.. Watson replied for the defendants, sub
mItting the agreement with the Citizens Com
pany. He also produced affidavlts showing
that the crossing over the CIrizens' Company's
tracks at Seventh street was defective. The
Seventh street tracks were lower than the
Penn avenue tracks, causing jolting of the
cars of the defendants, and was very injurious
to their rolling stock. They had endeavored to
have the Citizens Company put the crossing in
good order and failed, and they were about to
DO it themselves The new crossing WOULD not
interfeR with the Citizens line, and was simi
lar to the one at Sixth street and Penn avenue
for the Pirtsburg, Allegheny and Manchester
Railway.
In addition Mr. Watson contended that the
Citizens Company, after entering into an agree
ment with them, had no right to make a lease
of the same tracks afterward to another COM
pany to the detriment of their line.
Mr. Reed maintained that the right of the de-
fendant was only running right, and when the
road was leased to the Allegheny Traction Com
pany it became the proprietor, subject to the
defendant, to run over the tracks as per the
agreement with the Citizens Company. If
there was any repairing to be done either the
Allegheny or Citizens Company should do It,
and the defendant company had no authority
to do so itself
At the conclusion of the argument the court
took the papers and reserved its decision.