Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-12-05
A PARTIAL VICTORY.
Judge Ewing's Decision Against the
Central Traction Company
IN THE HIGH STREET INJUNCTION,
The Double Track on That ThorOughfare
Nay Have to Come Up.
PROPERTY HOLDERS HAVE A GOOD CASE

The property holders on Sixth avenue, be-
tween Wylie and Webster avenues Gold
High street,, have scored victory against
the Central Traction Company. Judge
Ewing has handed down an opinion over
ruling the demurrer entered by the company,
and it is barely possible that the company
will have to tear their tracks from the
street.
If the property holders finally win the
case, the company will either have to vscate
the thoroughfare or pay the residents for the
privilege of running their cars on the street.
As the readers of The DISPATCH al
ready know the traction company now oc-
cupy the street with their tracks. 1t is q
narrow thoroughfare and the space between
the outside tracks and the curb is so narrow
that vehicles will be unable to pass
When the cable cars are running
on the street vehicle travel will
have to find some other way of
getting to Wylle or Fifth avenues from that
part OF the city. The street is now crowded
most of the day with teams from the Pan
handle freight yard and is about the only
one that can be used by teams to or from
that place and the hill At the corner of
Wylie avenue the outside track is within
four inches of the curb, and the residents of
the vicinity say there will be numerous ac-
eidents at the corner on this account.
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
Some months ago the property holders
along the street asked the Court for a pre-
liminary injunction restraining the COM
pany from putting down a double track.
They had one track down, and the general
supposition was that the cars would go down
Sixth avenue and up Wylie from Fifth and
Grant. When the residents found that the
company was putting down two tracks
they were sstounded on account of the
narrow condition of the street. When they
asked for the preliminary injunction the at
torney of the corporation, James Reed, Esq,
of Knox & Reed, said the company would
furnish indemnity bonds If they we're al
lowed to continue the construction of the
road. This arrangement was made, and the
work of laying the second track was COM
pIeted.
Mr.. Reed then put in demurrer, alleging
that there was no Jurisdiction in equity in
the case, and asked that the proceedings for
an injunction be quashed. He SAID the
remedy of the property holders was suits
for damages if they had any grievances. He
said it was not a case in equity. The Court
took the papers under adVisement. In the
Tue nave Deen completed.
In his opinion, which was filed in the
Prothonotary's Office yesterday, Judge Ew-
ing said there was jurisdiction in equity
and the company mnst show WHY they took
possession of the street. The company is
chartered under the traction act of
1887, which does not allow trac-
tion company TO traverse any street not
already occupied by passenger railway
The only way in which they could legally
get possession of the street was to obtain the
consent of the property owners. This they
did not do, and the street was never occu-
pied before BY any railway. This makes
them trespassers, the attorneys for the de-
PENDANTS claim.
MUST GO 10 THE SUPREME COURT.
Judge Ewing says the objections to the
bill are all overruled upon the grounds in
which they have been made. He did not
like to express any opinion on the merits
of the case ITSELF feeling confident that il
would go to tn Supreme Court
The defendants will be given 80 days in
which they are expected TO file an answer.
If they do not answer ~ that time the ifrz
Junction will be granted by the Court 1t
will then be optional with the property
holders what shall be done with the tracks.
If they decide to remove them the company
viii have to take them up. 1t is possible a
monetary arrangement may be made, and
the property owners paid BY the company
for the privilege of running the cars on the
street.
Messrs. C. c. Dickey and George Shiras
Ill were the attorneys for the plaintiffs. In
conversation with a DISPATCH reporter
yesterday MIR. Shiras said:
The company are trespassers and if we
win the suit in the end they will have to
pay for the privilege of occupying the street
or tear up their tracks II is not question
of damages, but one of right They must file
an answer and disclose their line of defense
in the final proceedings. Judge Ewing
says the case should go before a Master to
be argued. ! suppose that one will be ap-
pointed and testimony taken. The property
holders have good case against the COM
Pany and in Judge Ewing's opinion they
have scored a victory. No, the opinion |
will in no way affect the Pittsburg Traction
Company. They secured the consent of all |
the property holders except one before they |
put their tracks on Fifth avenue between |
Liberty and Grant street. The fact that |
they acquiesced to the proceeding valves |
all claims for trespass.' %