New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-05-17
WARNED BY THE COURTS.
,,,r MANHATTAN RAILWAY INJUNCTIoNS.
DETERMINATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
,usrrcEs-THE RUNNING OF TRAINS TO BE
STOPPED IF PRESENT DILAToRY
METHODS ARE CONT NUED
IN THE COURTS.

he
1or6 damage suits now pending in the courts
Judge Beach, when he came TO take up the case
- Moore against the New-lork Elevated Railroad
Cornnany in the Special Term of the Supreme
60, Yesterday was met by the usual methods
-, +ho dee.ndants in these actions in attempting
=. .,ove of judgments The judge not only COM
roued the defendants to proceed but he made an
anouncement that startled them. He said that
Tho courts of equity had exercised their dlscre-
,ion heretofore in allowing the railroad companies
to nav 70 the property owners the damages they
bad suffered. instead of enjoining the operation of
tho roads But this was not the absolute right
&C tho defendants and had only been done that
,be nublic might not he put to inconvenience by
tho stoppage of means OF transit. But the course
- the railroad companies In the employment of
their dflatory methods in the courts mad brought
matters 70 a climax. The point had been reached
whom the blocking of the courts by such methods
threatened more serious public harm than would
tho stopping of the operation of the railroads
The threat of public inconvenience had been
held over the courts long enough. The judge
said therefore that he had been directed by Pre-
siding Justice Van Brunt TO make the announce
mont that il had been decided that if the present
methods of the defendants were continued abso-
Int iniunctiouS, without stays, would be issued
nd
This decisive and concurrent action OF the
udces Of the Supreme Court, especially in view
of some recent uterances of several of the Judges
of the Superior and Common Pleas courts indi-
eating like purpose. is OF great and far reaching
importance II is asserted by the property-own-
ers that the railroad companies have attempted
throughout these protracted litigatonS over the
damage to abuttfng 10 use the public
convenience" as a bugbear TO ward oil the PEN
atty Of absolute injunctions that would have
fallen upon ordinary wronC-doers under like cir
cumstances. The property owners have brought
their actions generally on the equity side OF the
court for an injunction to restrain the operation
of the railroad in front of their premises and in
cdentally for the damages that have been suffered
in the past The courts have in every such case
that has been tried found that the plaintiff was
entitled 70 his injunction because the defendants
had deprived him of his easements IN the street
without compensation. But. on the ground Of
public convenience they have made their de-
crees in alternative form That is. they have
determined from the evidence, not only the past
damage for which they have given Judgment. hut
they have also determined upon the amount OF
the permanent fee damage"-that is the damage
for all future time-and have decreed That the
absolute Injunction should issue only in case the
companies did not pay the property owner the
amount of that fee damage within a certain spec
fled time.
The first misuse which the property owners as
sert the companies made of this privilege was To
obtain stays of the operation of the inImctlons
while they took appeals, in many cases upon the
most trivial grounds and so tied the cases up
for wears before they were reached IN the Court
of Appeals. II not pretended by their coun-
sci that these appeals in most cases Were for any
other purpose than delay and 10 tire out ana as
bearten suitors. Even in the few cases in which
they did secure new trial upon some technical
ground as 10 some rule OF evidence or form OF
finding. the courts upon the trial. generally
rave the same Judgment with the damages that
had accumulated in the meantime added 10 the
former award So that the defendants gained
nothing except the delay, with the damages ac-
cumulating at 6 per cent interest, and with all
the additional expense Of a second trial
The next method which 1t IS maintained the
companies adopted was TO prolon5 the trials
10 an unnecessary length IN order that as few
cases could be tried possible. The patience
of all the judges who have tried these cases
has been exhausted by these methods. Inc
ingenuity exercised by some OF the counsel EN-
Moved by the companies in pIotracing case
is said 10 have beer marvellous. Bet the most
recent procedure Of these counsel is what has
dicial wrath.
The Court of Appeals in recent case, III which
they affirmed a Judgment against the companies,
criticised some testimony offered by experts as
IN the effect of the railroad upon the value OF
the premises in question Since mat decision
when is knO"n as the McOedn case, Uhc ue-
PENDANTS have objected 10 tlIS Enc oil expert
testimony and although some OF the Judges
have admitted the evidence, under what
had been supposed 10 be wei Sctllcd IDIes Oh
It..Hff q q vi
The Court Of Appeals left the matter IN an ui-
settled state ana have decided 10 sustain l!e
objection But the action OF the companies couh-
SCI III Obiectlng 10 this testimony mas proven
The Mclean decision 10 be tWO-cdgcd sword
with the shaTpe,t edge toward TIE defendants.
There have been several recent lniImailoho
that judicial patience was being exhausted. One
of these came from Judge O'Bren last month.
When objection made 10 such testimony "'
experts in one case. he said with great dehpeIa-
tion To the defendants counsel: IL Will >"
iust as well 10 understand matters. II You
make that objection ! viii sustain II; bui You
must distinctly understand that II is al Your
peril This evidence Is more Tor the bencht 81
the defendant than Of the palntlh. The piainuh
is. upon his evidence. entitled 10 an absolute IN
junction. The courts have. however, heretofore
9iVen YOU a chance 70 pay the damages suffered.
that the road might not De stopped. But IL
you come here and object 10 the evidence wnIcn
permits the court 10 find what that amount o.
damage IS, there Is nothing for the court To do
but grant the injunction; If that result follows
this The fault VIII be your own. Jud@c
OBren has not yet given his decision III that
case Similar warnings have been gwen by
Chief Judge Sedgwlck. and Judges TruaX and
freedman, of the Superior Court, and by CMet
Judge LarremOre. Of the Common Pleas. HE
defendants have gone on. however, with an ap-
papntly calm assurance that the courts would not
really enOin them because Of the public IN
convenience" But the judges Of the supreme
Court acting in unison. with Presiding justice
Van Brunt at their head are not supposed 10
be men who can deliberately be thrilled with
Apparently their great patience has at last been
exhausted.
The position Of the elevated railroad companies
explained by their counsel Oh the other hand
is that they have merely been endeaNorlng 10
have the cases tried according 20 what they be
leve TO be the true rules Of evidence: that they
have secured from the Court Of Appeals a decision
which suStains their views, and they are seeking
10 apply il in the courts. They malntaIn that
the amount Of damages should be determined from
all the facts, without the spcculationS, rs they
term them, Of experts 10 the effect of the rail-