The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-12-15
LHHIGH'S BAD FAITH.
Counsel McGrath Alleges
Trickery and
Deceit.
FICTITIOUSDAMAGES'SETU UP
1t Will Greatly Embarrass the
County to Change the Grade
of the County Road.

Chancellor McGll had another busy
day yesterday. From ten o'clock until
six O'Clock he sat on the bench with the
exception OF few minutes in the early
afternoon, when he retired to his private
room and hastily ate a sandwich. His
time during the afternoon was taken up
with the application of the Lehigh Valley
Railroad Company for an Injunction to
restrain the county from interfering with
the grade of Avenue A, Bayonne, for the
County Road until the Supreme Court
has decided the certiorari proceedings in
the matter of the ordinance of the City
of Bayonne giving the company permits
sion to depress Avenue A where the COM
pany proposes to build its bridge.
Judge McGrath read the county's
answer and the affidavits substantiating
the assertion and facts therein set forth.
The answer accuses the company of
trickery and fraud. and perverting facts
IN its cross will upon which the applica-
tion for the injunction was based. 1t
also alleges that the company had en-
deavored, by underhand means, to de.
fraud the county of its just rights and to
entail needless expense upon the tax
payers.
The affidavits of Chief Engineer E. W.
Harrison, of the County Road, detailed at
length all the transactions be tween him
self and the committee of Freenolders
and Reon Barnes. of the railroad, in re-
gard to the change of grade which the
company sought to obtain and which was
prejudicial to the best interests of the
county. He showed the fallacy of the
company's claim that if they were not
allowed to change the grade of Avenue A
they would be put to great expense to
change the plans and grades of their
road.
THE WORK NOT FAR ADVANCED.
This Mr.. Harrison denied ant d said that
the company's work had progressed only
so far that they could change their plans
for crossing the established grade OF the
avenue with clearance of thirteen feet,
with an additional cost of only that OF
additional material. He also claimed
that such a change would not make too
steep grade for the road, as claimed by
the company, as 1t would be no greater
than the grade which the company main
tains through the city of Newark, and
which is maintained by railroads all over
the country. He also showed how the
bridge over Newark Bay could be raised
so as to less impede navigation and he
averred that the company had not OBJ
tained from the Riparian Commissioners
the right to the land under the waters of
New York Bay for the approaches to its
bridge.
He further maintained that many of
the persons whose names were annexed
to the petition to the Bayonne Council
for the change of grade OF Avenue A de.
clared either that they had Withdrawn
their names from the petition or that
they had been put there without their
knowledge or consent.
Assistant Engineer Thorne swore that
he had computed the cost of changing
the grade of the railroad to conform 70
that of Avenue A as it now is, and he
did not consider 1t anything AS dear as
the railroad company pretended II was.
Charles b. Brush, who said he had had
a large amount of experience in building
bridges and approaches thereto. cor
roborated Mr.. Thorne.
Robert e Bacot, Secretary of the State
Board of Riparian Commissioners. testi-
fed that the railroad company had not
secured from the State the right to the
lands in Newark Bay which they claimed
to own.
Director-at-Large Bruggemau. John H.
Gable, Judge McGrath and Freenolders
Ellis and Noonan gave evidence touching
the negotiations of Mr.. Barnes.
THE COMPANY DENOUNCED.
In commenting upon the testimony
Judge MEG attn was severe in his denun-
citation of the railroad company and de-
clared that Its dealings with the county
had been characterized by trickery and
fraud throughout. The company offered
to make contract protecting the inter-
ests of the county provided it was given
permission TO cross Avenue A at the de-
sired grade.
The contract was never made, and even
while daliying with the county the agents
. II m ~ hnf "a n
nance had been signed. Now they sought
to tie the coupiy's hands by an injunction.
They forced the county to appear in the
position of begging the court tor perm is
sion to carry out the orders of the Legis-
ture.
The Court, Mr.. McGrath claimed, could
not Interfere with the powers conferred
upon any Board until it was shown that
the abuse OF such powers was contem-
plated. The Freeholders had yet to take
the first step to fix the boulevard grade
OF Avenue A, and until they do SO there
is no basis for an injunction.
The Freeholders mad treated the COM
pany with fairness and courtesy and had
endeavored in every way to avoii doing
It's interests any harm. Instead of the
courtesy in return which thev had the
right to expect, they had been tricked.
sorts of wrong doing. They had
waited upon the company day after day
for that promised contract, and have ut
times beeu treated with positive discour-
tesy. The company had reputable law
yers for its open, above board work, who
deserve the 'chair of plausbility," if
such is ever endowed, and other agents to
attend to the work behind the scenes.
JUDGE SMITHS ARGUMENT.
Ex-Judge Abel i. Smitu followed Judge
McGrath, and sad:-"rhe general rail
road law. which Is cited as an authority
in this case, has never been construed in
this State, as far as the clauses referring
to the present case are concerned. The
company relies upon the equities present.
ed in its cross bliL 1t is established that
a Court of Equity cannot interfere with
the vested powers of a municipal board
until definite action has been taken which
demands interference. The county has
taken no steps toward fixing the grade
of Avenue A and cannot be restrained
from doing something which may or
may not be contemplated. By being
obliged TO raise the bridge the company
will have to pay about S53, COO or the
county will have to pay about $42, 600 for
making the grade of the boulevard con-
form 10 the grade fixed by the company.
"The question is not one Of irreparable
damage to be restrained by injunction.
Any damage done the railroad property by
subsequent change of grade would be
assessab BILE by damages, as the Court has
already defined. All the alleged trickery
is upon the part OF the company.
It's very claim here today that
100000 of property. is affected is