Morning journal and courier., 1890-01-25
THE CONsoLIDATkD,s FIGHT.
The Injunction Against che Housa- tonic Sustained by Judge Hall-The NEen |. H~

The Injunction Against che Housa-
 tonic Sustained by Judge Hall-The
 Tracks are Safe.
 BRIDorPoRr, Jan. 24.-Judgs Hall to day refused to dissolve the injunction secured by the New York, New Haven & Hartford rail- road against the Housatonic road preventing the latter road from laying a cross track at Water street over the tracks of the New
 York. New Haven & Hartford railroad.
 In his decision Judge Hall says: The
 Housatonic railroad company intended on
 the night of the 9th of January, between the
 hours of 9 and 12:30 o'clock. with large
 force of workmen to lay railroad track
 across the main tracks used by the New
 York, New Haven & Hartford railroad com pany at point south of and near the eleva- tor in Bridgeport.
 The defendant company claim tho right to construct such cross-over upon the ground that the Housatonic railroad company own the fee of the land upon which the main tracks used by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railroad company run at this point, upon which the cross over was to be laid. The plaintiffs deny the right to so construct track at grade across the main tracks now in use by them.
 Upon this motion to dissolve the tempo | rary injunction, no judgment can be rem
 dered. It cannot, upon this application, be | decided whether a permanent injunction
 should be granted. The question whether the temporary injunction should be con
 tinued in force. or be dissolved, is largely Q discretionary one.
 I understand from the evidence that the Water street siding was laid by plaintiffs, | and has since 1886 been exclusively used by them, and that defendants freight cars have
 been switched to and from the elevator by the plaintiffs whenever the defendants have desired 1t done.
 If the plaintiffs use and occupy the land of
 the defendants only, and the defendants may cause plaintiffs' tracks to be removed
 without the aid of legal proceedings, the defendants have not attempted to exercise | such rights, nor attempted to revoke such
 license. No notice had been given to plain. | tiffs to remove their two main tracks as interpret the evidence; nor has any notice whatever been given by defendants to plaia. tiffs of the contemplated interference of the
 use by plaintiffs of said main tracks by the building of the cross over in question. think, from the evidence, that the build- | ing by defendants of the contemplated cross- | over at this point, while the two railroads r are under independent management would
 seriously interfere with the management of | the plaintifs' railroad, and would endanger property and life; and that while said two
 main tracks are so used by the plaintiffs, the building of said cross-over ought not to be permitted.
 It is not apparent to me how the fact that | the defendants' railroad company own the land over which the plaintiffs company run their railroad renders the contemplated
 crossing at grade any less dangerous than it would be if the plaintiffs owned tho land | The fact, as 1t seems 10 me, would remain
 that if the contemplated cross-over should be 1 laid, the tracks of the two railroad compa-
 nies under independent management would
 cross each other at grade; and that this Is precisely the state of things which the stat
 ute intended to forbid, unless such crossing was made with the consent and approval of 1 the railroad commissioners.
 I Before the defendants are permitted to
 build the cross-over in the manner intended
 think an opportunity should be given for
 presenting these questions for the censidera-
 tion and decision of the Superior court. I The motion to dissolve the temporary in-
 junction is denied.