Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-05-19
THE FIRST STREET VIADUCT.
City Attorney Mcfarland Files HIS
Answer.

City Attorney Mcfarland Files Hi
Answer.
City Attorney Mcfarland yesterday
filed his answer in the case of Mrs. L. M
Bigelow against the City, enjoining the
defendant from constructing the viaduct
in front of her place on First street. The
answer alleges, upon information anc
belief, that the plaintiff is not the owner
of the property in question, and that the
city is the owner of First street In front
of the property; that large portion Of
/ the city, called Boyle Heights, is stu
ated east of the river. and contains q
population of about 5000 people, whose
most accessible route to and from the
heart of the city is along First street
which street is also largely travelled by
others, not residents at Boyle Heights, il
being the most direct entrance to the city
from the east side of the river; that in
July, 1888, the Council declared that the
erection of the bridge was necessary
Cor public safety and convenience, and
on September %, 1888, entered into
contract with the Bridge Company fol
the erection of the bridge. Defendant
den les that the same is an elevated
viaduct, and all of the allegations of the
plaintiff, and alleges that, from point
100 feet east of plaintiff g property, on
First street, to the bank of the river, a
distance of 400 feet, the land is used for
switching purposes by the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company
so that the passage along First street is
dangerous to life and limb, and for this
reason plan for an elevated bridge was
adopted, so that the travel will pass over
the tracks of the Railroad Company
Defendant also states that plaintiff has
had personal notice that the bridge would
be built, for q long time, and she has
negligently permitted the city, without
protest, to remove the old bridge, to en-
ter into contract for the construction of
a bridge costing $65, 900, and waited I'M
til the material had been manufactured
and was upon the ground, before she
asserted any claim for damages; that a
large part of the bridge has been built
and traffic over the river is suspended,
and if an Injunction ia granted seri-
GUS damage will result. Defendant
alleges that it is solvent, and is able to
respond in damages in any sum which
plaintiff may recover by reason of the
erection of the bridge. and alleges that,
while it deems that plaintiff will be
damaged by the construction of the
bridge; that, after the restraining order
had been granted, in order to prevent
delay, defendant agreed with plaintiff to
submit the question of damage to arbi
tration, and a submission of arbitra ton
was drawn up, in which both plaintiff
and defendant agreed to abide by the
decision of the arpitrators, and, in pur-
suance of said submission, the abitrators
awarded plaintiff $4,000, which Gum the
defendant offered to pay and which she
refused to take. The answer alleges
that the defendant is willing to pay this
sum, or to enter into bond to be signed
by the city and responsible sureties, in
an amount fixed by the Court that the
city will pay plaintiff and damage over
and above the sum which she may SUI :
tain; wherefore defendant prays that the
restraining order be dissolved,