New-York tribune., 1891-09-16
MIR. M'MAHON'S BIG SUIT.
HIS ALLEGED SERVICES AT ALBANY.
WHAT HE BASES HIS CLAIM upoN-Ir IS SAID
THAT ]. NJ. WATERBURY DOES NOT

L.. NJ.
KNOW THE PLAINTIFF
nisr,,ches from Boston printed yesterday indioaIu
o,o,her stem In tAe suit Of William hc'lahoh III .
cuoorior Court OF Massachusetts against janis 90
wa,aiury OF this city, to secure payment lot aloHe
services in connection with a'eihp''u ,,,-
Anonv IN the Interests of rapid transit ran""'
-, Gov Ne,,,York He Sues at law 10 recover
o.oo GOO damages and In bill In equity Tor slnir
-, A. the hills introduced were not passed. o"
g., 90 the legislative deadlock, the nature ol .ho %
,,,ces performed and the damages sustained Dy ''
Mcmahon art not apparent ~
The laws passed by the Legislature bearing Oh 'iO
general subject Of rapid transit ana surface f"iN
sssnov4ation in New York city extend over con
siderable period and have come to DC conhic"hs -
thair provisions After the passage OF the rap"
rr5st Commission law at the last session IL WAS
Aemod wise by the rrumoters OF rapid transit schcmes
IN secure something like harmony between the ha'iy
laws that stood on the statute books, In oruor "
tedious delays for the settlement Of disputed points
hv the Court Of Appeals. pending the hnal dsPo'uo
NJ franchises under tho at The attention m emlIfsn
LAWYERS was directed 10 the subject ana series VI
hills were drafted for simrfication OF the laws d.
thev then existed. For instance, Section OF Chap
Tor 10 of the lows of 1SGO provided that II sfouId
not be lawful 10 construct or operate any ruhio"i
In the streets or avenues Of New-hOrK O'! eAVoP'
under rccuaons and restrictions granted and pfOvlded
for by the Legislature. In view Of the passage oi Io
Rapid Transit Commission act 1t was prOposeu !"
amend this section by inserting the words or eX'ep'
uuder such conditions and subject to such require
monts as shall be Imposed by any Board Of Eapln
Transit Commissioners appointed authorized under
the provisions Of any law"
Again. Chapter 642 OF the laws OF loop' 'nc
well-knoN-n Cantor acts was daemed restIlou'o III
that Il applied to the extension and operation oi
street railways; and the Court Of Appeals had ue-
offs IFIpTh
low the surface was a street nload 1t was theeiore
nroposed 10 amend this law so that II should not
affect or be deemed applicable TO any railway COM
pay organized authorized empowered or SUBJECT 10
requirements and conditions imposed by any board OF
rapid transit commissioners appointed or duVAorl1c"
under tho provisions of any law"
one of the principal objects sought to be ac-
oompished by this amendment was the adjustment Oh
conflicting provisions as to the manner IN wmeh
franchises should be disposed Of the Cantor act pro
viding that they should be sold at auction at the
CITY Hall (which did not harmonic with the proNlSlohs
Of the Rapid Transit Commission act Of Jannary last
Another bill was framed ameudatOry OF the new
Rapd Transit Commission law itself WIN We" -
harmonizing with II in general way all preceding
acts which had not been repealed on the passage vi
succeeding acts and many Of the provisions OF Whch
might be technically held TO conflict with those of inc
new act It was also intended to eluchhte certain
points involved In doubt in the minds OF many lawyers
os IN the right OF commissioners appointed under the
new law to act under designated sectoos OF former
laws The foregoing mentioned bills, numDcfe1
respectively l17g 1190 and 11S1, were introdhced
jn the Assembly by Mr.. BrodslKy by request. Dill
was also introduced in the Senate authorizing the
Mayor OF New York to sppont commission IN place
of the existing Subway Commission to deal with the
question Of the laying and the disturbance OF under
ground gas steam, water and other pipes, TO act III
co-operatlon with the Rapid Transit Commission
The intention Of this bill to concentrate authority
I'm all affairs associated with subway connections ana 10
systematize the work Of collecting rentals, etc
The bills were drafted under the euperlntendence of
Rowland r. Hazard. who, speaking of the subject
Yesterday, said that the Underground Construction
Company proposed to bid for the rapid transit franchise
and simply desired in advance that all points of law
should be made 80 clear as TO preclude the possibility
Of disputes and consequent delays awaiting the ad-
iustlnent OF complicated questions by tle courts
Mr. Hazard denied all knowledge Of the grounds on
which Mr. McMahon's alleged claim Ogainst Mr. Water
bury Is based Mr.. Waterbury himself, it was said
at his Office, out Of town. Charles L. Nteroury'
his COUNSEL said there were no developments In
the case and that Dir. Mcmahon was personally ul-
known to both Mr. Waterbury and himself, ard that
the claim was fictitious. Judge sherman Of the Su-
peror Court Of Massachusetts. has decided that the
Old Colony Trust Company must within ten days
answer a new set OF mterIogatories with view 10
determining positively whom the SlOOoOOO WOIth
of securities deposited by Mr. Waterbury belong Ihe
Trust Company maintained III lts answer 1aT o, INC
Julia Waterbury and Rowland Il. Hazard, and that they
were deposited By Mr. Waterbury for delivery 10 Ger.
tain people named when the four bls above mentioned
should have been passed by the New-YTk Legislature