The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-03-06
THAT JUDICIAL SHOCK.
1t Was an Engineering Fact
Which Rent the Court of
Appeals Asunder.

The action Of the Lay Judges Of the
Court Of Appeals yesterday in outvoting
their legal brethren still continues to be
the leading topic of conversation among
the lawyers. A fellow lawyer this morn
ing asked Mr.. Asa w. Dickinson, who
represented the Junction Railroad Com
pany before the courts, IL he was in favor
Of abolishing the lay judges.
Decidedly not" replied Mr.. Dickinson
laughing. They are an excellent insti-
tuition"
1t seems that the question upon which
the court split Wednesday was one of
fact and not OF law. Mr.. Dickinson says
that the court was unanimously in
favor OF the junction Company on
the law points raised But
the law judges were Of the opinion that
the surveys of its route which the June
ton Company filed with it's application
Tor Commissioners to condemn the right
OF way across the Pennsylvania's yard
was not sufficiently definite to determine
where the company proposed to lay its
tracks.
The wooden judiary, ,one Of whose mem
oers Is an engineer and thought he ought
TO know little more about survey aud
the like than the legal lights, held that
the surveys were definite enough to show
what the intent OF the company was.
Mr.. Dickinson also says that an er-
roneous impression of the junction roads
intention has gotten abroad. The com
pany never intended to cross the Penn
sylvania road 10 grade, but wanted to 70
under its tracks. The PENNSYLVANIA
refused absolutely TO let the junction
Company cross its road in any manner.
The decision ofW ednesday is beyond doubt
final. II the Court decides to give the case
feses 4tter9 -
quorum OF the Court OF which the Lay
judges form majority and it is NOS
likely that they will reverse themselves
The junction people will now 20 ahead
and tunnel under the PENNSYLVANIA 8
tracks at the Point Of Rocks.
THE LAW WITH THE JUNCTION ROAD.
Even if the decision had been against
them it would not have stopped them
from going on with their road, for the
Chancellor decided that one railroad
company may condemn the right to cross
the lands OF another company OF the
same character, although those lands be
necessary for the railroad purposes of the
latter company. In such condemnation
all that is acquired is the privilege or
ing is TO be and remain in the common
use OF both companies for the exercise OF
their respective franchises.
HOW ONE ROAD MAY CROSS ANOTHER.
The condemnlng company may, by its
petition in condemnation proceedings,
designate q lawful manner in which it
will cross the lands of the other company,
and make compensation for that single
manner of crossing. in which case il
can thereafter cross only in accordance
with the place thus designated
When such petition prescribes the
manner OF crossing the legality of the
plan and manner OF crossing, proposed
may be reviewed in the Supreme Court
on certiorari. Upon due compensation
the present use of The lands for the rail
road crossed must yield TO any necessary
interference by the crossing road which
will not destroy the reasonably fair en-
joyment and exercise of the franchises of
the company whose lands are crossed,
fhe junction people however would
have had TO begin condemnation pro-
ceedings anew.