Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1889-03-10
THE INJUNCTION CASE.
In the Proceedings Brought by Mr.. Arbenz
Against the
v. & 4. RAILROAD COMPANY
Up for Argument at a Special Session Of
the Circuit Court
HELD BY JUDGE PAUL. LAST NIGHT.

HELD BY JUDGE PAUL. LAST NIGHT.
A special term Of The Circuit Court,
Judge PAUL, was held at the Court House,
last evening, fos The purpose Of listening
to arguments upon a motion by W. P.
Hubbard, counsel for the Wheeling and
Harrisburg Railway Company, to dissolve
the injunction recently awarded b. Jndge
Paall, prohibiting the Railroad Company
from constructing It's track alcrg Twen-
tieth street. east of Chapline street and
Just in front of the property known IS the
Arbeuz furniture factory. The Injunction
was granted a week OF ten days ago by
Judge PAUL., upon application made by
AIr. Arberz through Henry NJ. Russell, his
counsel. and after an elabor te argument
Of the roints in the case. The Railroad
Company gave notice OF az appeal, and
Mr.. Arbenz was required TO give bend
of $50. 600 for the protection OF the Com
pany from any damages which the Company
might sustain by reason OF oelay, etc, to
their work.
LAST evening after M Hubbard had
pressnted his arguments, Mt. Russell said
he had nothing to add TO what he bad
said TO The CoaIt upon the arguments OF
the molten for the original Injunction, and
Judge PAUL 0verrnled the motion for dis
solution. The Railroad Company immed
lately gave notice of an appeal, aud also
moved to mod ~ the injunction 50
us To slow the Company TO 20 on with
the work of construction uDou the giving
of sn iudemrilying bond to answer for all
damages which might accrue to Ir. Ar
benz In making This application Mr..
Hubbard ci,ed the Court 10 Campbell v.
Point Pleasant and Ohio River Railroad
Company, % West Virginia, as a parallel
case.
Mt. Russell denied that the case was 8
parallel one. Ii Mr. Arbeuz was right in
the position be had taken the Railroad
Company could never Ccc1py Twentieth
street 10 the manner sought, and there
fore Mr.. Hubbard's motion was not
proper one.
Mr.. Hubbard, in reply, coniended the
Injunction stood wholly on the right OF
Air. Arberz as IN sbutting o 6ner. His was
a plea for damages, ana nothing else.
Nothing had been taken from Mr. Arbenz;
simple damage wss all be could sustain,
and q bond would make him whole. He
read the syllabus in the p. Pleasant case,
which set forth that the ends OF justice
would be subs5rved and promoted by a
bond. and said the syllabus should have
precedence over the opinion.
Mr Russell ventured the remark that
his friends notions Of law had been cor
rupted By recent practice IN election cases.
AT any rate, he differed with him as to the
relative value of the syllabus and the Opin-
. ions In the case cited He insisted a bond
would not be proper HIS clients case
was not q mere question OF damages, ana
In so characteiizpg it. Mr.. Hubbard was
entirely wrong. The RsilrCad Company
could not acquire the right TO lay down its
tracks against the plaintiffs wishes, no
matter how large the sum offered as dam
ayes might be. because it was agsinst the
law. "A railroad company can't do every
thing. and this is one OF the things 1t can't
DO. If the Railroad Company should Of
fer g million dollars damages, the defend
ant could still stand on his right, ard re-
/ fuse 10 allow the highway to be pat to any
such use as Is proposed"
Mr.. Hubbard-It is possible that the
company can take the property for railroad
PURPOSES, under the law, and lot be able to
lake right merely pertinent thereto?
The street is only an adjunct Of the prop
arfv
The Court TO Mr. Russell Why would
70, a hond ford the plaintiff complete
protection:
Mr.. Russell-Because this is not a qu5s'
ton of damsgas. Your Honor could not
devise a bond which would compel the
comuanv to an up and restore the street IN
case of 10 adverse decision in the Court
above. To make a bond take the plsca Of
the Injunction ia equivalent to telling the
rIaiptif he had no right to an iDlunctloni
tbat Ell he can 90 is to sue for DAMAGE
The nlsintiF had that right without any
Injunction at all.
Mr.. Hubbard insisted it wss simply
necuuiarv question with Mr.. Arbenz ara
the Court took that view OF 1t, for II de'
cided TO allow a bond, and thus let WORK
20 on. The amount OF the bond was
placed at $4,000 Mr.. Russell then asked
Tor stay OF thirty days and this was grant
ed. a bond OF $. 600 being required from
Mr. AIbeuz
The MISTER is one Of great importance to
the Railroad Company and therefore to the
citizens. During the course of the discus
sion last evening Mr.. Russell disc'aimed
any purpose to impede a great public en-
tefprise. or to cause delay for the mere
sake of delay, and the matter will be
brought TO the attention of the higher
Court Of the earliest practicable moment.