Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-09-07
INJUNCTION APPLIED FOR.
The Howards Ask the Courts TO Stop the
Widening of Diamond AlIey-The
Attorneys Who Will. Fight the
Civ AnIhoritieG.

The matter of widening Diamond alley
reached the courts yesterday. Messrs. Dal'
zelI, Scott and Gordon and John H. Hamp.
ton, attorneys, filed bill in equity in Com.
mon Pleas Court No. 2, asking for pre-
liminary injunction to restrain the city
authorities from proceeding with the widen
ing of the alley. The suit is brought by
William j., A. W. Hartley, James NJ. and
Rebecca Howard, Caroline Jack, Jane II.
Reno, Mary NJ. Hays, W. b. Nlmick and
Alexander Nimick, owners, and Morris
Saller and Benjamin Marks, doing business
as Saller & Co., against E. J. Allen, TIM
othy O'Leary, Jr., and Daniel Wenke,
Viewers of Street Improvements; E. NJ.
BigeIow, Chief of the Department of Public
Works. and the city of Pittsburg
The plaintiffs designated as owners own
the Howard block, containing six houses,
on the west side of Diamond alley. 1t in
cludes the building at the corner of Smith
field street and Diamond alley, which is
leased to Saller & Co. 1t is stated that the
alley, when originally laid out, was but 20
feet in width. Abner Updegraff. who for
merly owned the property now held by the
plaintiffs, when he built on the ground put
his houses five feet back and dedicated five
feet to the alley, increasing the width to %
feet to within 60 feet of Wood street, and
that width has remained for many years.
They state that the city claims the right to
widen the street to a so loot street and build
an arcade through the market house, not at
the cost of the city, but by assessment OF
benefits upon property that the Board of
Viewers determine will be benefited by the
widening.
The bill then quotes the act of assembly
of May 16, 1885, giving the city the right to
construct and widen streets, etc. They aver
that Chief Bigelow has had the street and
markets surveyed with a view to widening
the street, and will proceed to do so unless
restrained by Court; and that the Board of
Viewers will proceed to make assessments
and already several bills of notices of the
same, on property owners have been sent
asking them to call at the meeting Septem-
Der z, when they will receive claims for
damages and all complaints and evidences
will be heard.
The plaintiffs hold that if the street is
widened it will destroy the first large ware
house on the northwest corner Of Diamond
street and Smithfeld street, and six feet Of
the adjoining lot and building of
the plaintiffs, thereby practically rem
dering it unfit for use. The
proposed opening, they claim, is not of
interest or Denent 10 the owners OF property
fronting or abutting thereon, but solely for
the benefit of the public at large; also that
the viewers have no legal right to arbitrari-
ly set apart any portion, of the city and
specially tax it for making the improve
ment as Diamond alley is a public thor
oughfare. The act of Assembly referred to,
it is further claimed, is unconstitutional,
because the title is not in accordance with
article 3 of the Constitution, which says no
bill except general appropriation bills shall
be passed containing more than one subject,
which shall be clearly expressed in the title.
Second, because it is violation of the first
section of article 9 of the Constitution,
which provides that there shall be no local
assessment for an improvement Of general
benefit. In conclusion, the injunction re-
straining the defendants from prosecuting
work is asked for