New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-02-17
ARE THE CONSENTS BOGUS!
THE TROLLEY SYSTEM INJUNCTION.
HEARING ON THE MOTION BEtohr ~
sUPREME C~oURT-THE ALLEGATIONS

SUPREME COURT-THE A~LLEGAIloN'
OF FRAUD DENIED .
.Judce Incr,hom at Chambers OF the supreme Ooul'
Yesterday heard argument on the motion for inc con'
tlnuancc Of the preliminary injunction picVo"9g I'D I'D
ed against the Harlem Bridge, Marrisanla u -
ham Railway COMPANY, TO restrain the iaV'e'
the use Of certain consests of property o"mS' .o,iou
change OF motive power on that idiiro"u. na.,cr to
was brought by John W. and PauI "~amar,s
prevent the company nslng' as N"i" = tho
before the Board of Railroad Com"IS9'o"e'',
oouson,s - Tho nl,intig, and other properly o"hei'
similarly situated. that had been Withdrawn y 49,
sicners ON tine ground that they had been oD'n"o' ~
tr;llld and Misrepresentation. Artnur -.
C.. :. simpson appeared for the pro'esuhH piop hr
owners: the railroad company was -. Gov.
Henry W. sackett. Augustus D. Hutchlls ""N
ernor John >. Wise. .ho nroporty.
Mr.. Eutts said that the consents OF the piop' w
sonc ninety in number, had been oD'l'heu ~
frord and ne narrated the circumstances IL '".
that when these property owners SieUeu II "ohIc
giving the company the right TO use o""Ui r~rnd
traction or electric motor power they hau W. ,na.
by the agent Of the company who sOHclVcu '"'" a,nic
the company would not put IN any ioi" Va .noss
motor. but only a cable power; relying upo" .a
,romiscs they had signed them. MI bu''e "HO r
on.od affidavit, TO show other frauds by the co""p'"'
il, rc.nert to other owners Of property aIohs u' 80
In one case. he said, the person WHOSE hdi'' pr /,
Il, he signed TO the consent was a''u""y -.
orother. there was 10 such number III i"Iu
maj signed for: in still another, the name vi - ~
NOT the owner Of the premises was attacheu' ~
argued that he had made ont q case Nhlc" '"r-
.o tu4crferencc of a court If equity to pfNeHl Nv
~. ovi1encc before the Railroad Board OF the coH90"''
If any prop,rty owners that had been wlthur'"" "NN'
such circumstances. .orot.
Irdos Inrroham asked ( any Of the other "re'oN,
inro property owners appeared in the a'tlo', y 80
indicated in any way that they sought tms '0"0t r.
tbo court. Mr.. Butts answered NO." eAcep' tN"'
arami 90 tbem had made aridavits in the cast
indigo Inpraham said that it was perfectly ciear un"0
IN, motion must be confined to the question: ""e."a
the plalntins themselves were entitled to an ljun'u'"
a 10 their particular consents on the proofs ""'"
they presented respecting thcm'
Mr. .ach,tt in replying for the railroad company
aid that under this ruling by the court he woulu oo".
ane hi, argument entirely to the plaintlHS' o"So' o.
IN. -,ue time insisting that the moving papers u"
mot in reality set forth any allegation OF hl'fePLe'emre
ton made 10 any otner pIOpfrS Vm "et, ,ut of Inc
'" .i fLs arlduyit, of the officers ana a3ent' VI ~
,,iiV,'ad rnmuauy. denying that 1t had ever Uecn ~
resented to ans person slsnlls Su NC, ,1 etrrttdc motor.
to',I'"' mil anor ,urn consent, were obtained Idst
.ammcr. the oinccr, had not decided Nhlyh tU" r ~ ~
, ~, i'm other cite, ana with the ad gt cA
,.rt. untI finally. on December 10, l7Vo' upon IL "a
ir,,d.5 rrnort OF it, president, the company decldcu upou
~ Nv - sI.rtrir system. At one they prJceei'i
~ obtain the requisite permission OF the l}cai aHI
lAFfls- HMl III AiAAaIG 49, $500. - - bod
'r,' iay, after the Board OF Electrical Control hah
slyen it, consent did any propeitsGwncr v sgseNI T"c1
r.vosc his consent. These p:Dceedlhss WIZ ucsun
ir,t before the railroad B0ard was ABOUT u near ''
Mr. S,clctt argued in the first place that tne
ni,i tIf. had tot mad, cut = Ca-e upon inc ~ W9
anflL, thcm t, AN Injunction. In tc next PIa'tn
thc allegation, were tlUc . 30 the promise IIit uo
,5up1ny wa, said t. have made not to use an ccViIS
r,,t,,g. thi, did not I'm law constitute lriud lhtl hou.
yitiqte ,urh contract andotlat therefore IN consent
uu.t .t,ud. These consents were III Tue IatuLc VI
1rcf.. and conveyed certain easements III tie slIecV
which were " property. - - ,hosa
lie insisted that acting upon the good rilth u theHe
dulv executed Instruments. the COMPANY -" solc um
Il, cAIcud money and labor, and Aad III lM' My
under The consent granted by. the local. au'l1Il.ts
uroui,cd certain vested rights ~ which they cOtlld hol
Ic deprived AZ the mrrr option OF the sIgher lh"S
thc ,~IuirtUf,.r Mr. >Ickctt added. ARE without a
shaf6w ~ ju-tilc,tlor lu law or in morals 70 SUSTAIN
,iclr shameful reputation ~ their solemn consents.
~, hold INT nm Injunction would lie In such a case
wouid not only De 10 wrcSt Illegally from tIe ue-
fonda :, their vested rights, guaranteed 10y, te CON
It tuition, hut 1, pat a premium upon dls1OHe.I AZ
tempo, 10 c,cip. from tie legal eject OF contracts
deliberately entered into merely because a part!
found II to h, advantage 20 % So. A..
Judge Ingfnliam sad that he would go oyer me
pancrs submitted. hut be- did not sec. unless ms view
wa changed 10y some authorities that Hlght be clted'
how an Injunction cpuli issue Ia such a case.
The Railroad Commissioner, hold their neNt rect
ing Inn the mlttcr on Friday. II l. expected that uerc
Will be "a decision on th,s motion before that uhe'