The Jersey City news., 1891-07-16
VAN HORNE VACATION,
Argument on the Property
Owners Certiorari Heard
in Newark Today.
FINANCE BOARD CONCURRENCE.
II the Act Was an improvements
Could the Street Board
Act Alone?

The eertiorari proceedings In the case
OF Burke ana Jones against the Mayor.
and Aldermen Of Jersey City" was argued
In Newark this morning before Judges
Depus and Dixon. This harmless title
conseys but little. but the suit means
much
The Lehizh Valley Railroad wanted 70
close Van Horne street for the purpose Of
laying tracks on and about f. The peo-
pie OF Lafayette objected The strest and
Water Commissioners granted the per-
mission and the Mayor signed the resoiu-
ton that passed the Board The Finance
Board did not concur In this resolution. u
being claimed that this concurrence was
unnecessary.
The act Of the Board was certlorarfed
aud the writ as above mentioned was
srgued today Burke and Jones' are only
hgurehends in the prosecution Of the suit.
Many other Influences are behind them.
THE PETITIONERS CASE
The argument was opened by COUNSEL
lor Condit. of Randolph Condit & Biack.
who busiIy reviewed the facts as above
and then ex-Asemolyman John Heck on
behalf OF the property owners argued
that the fact that the Board Of Financs did
not concur in the resolution OF rhe
Board Of Street and Water Commission
ers the act Of vacating the street WIS
Illegal Mr.. Heck quoted different nu-
thorities for this assertion. and psrticu
larly section 46 Of the chartsr OF 1Szl-
lie insisted that any improvement that
required the expenditure Of money must.
By resolution, be concurred in By the
Board Of Finance
THE CITy's SIDE
Corporation Counsel Edwards followed
r 4Aak tAaa sal 49,. g.. -
interest Of Jersey City. The city was the
formal party 70 tho suit. He said fnat
the city, that is the Street ana Water
Commissioners, believed the Board
had acted in q regular manner
After reciring the fact that Van Horne
not laid ont. and that the Commissioners
realized that 1t would cost the city tens
Of thousands of dollars to fiji in the
meadow land which Is coversd BY wnfer,
aud on which II requires pile forty feet
long to strike hard bottom
The CORPORATION Counsel said.--"Tho
integrity Of the Board has not been at
tackled in these proceedings 50 far as tho
public Is concerned"
Mr. Edwards also stated that as a pay
nnent for the use Of Van Horne street the
Lehigh Valley Railroad Company had
dedicated and filed in Harold street at an
expense the city could not afford 10 go TO.
Tnis was one of the considerations that
determined the Board Of Street and
Water Commissioners TO vacate Van
Horne street. IL was claimed by the
speaker that the Board OF Finance WIS
not required 70 concur In the resolution
OF the Street and Water Board TO vAcaIe
street. for that act did net, rs Mr. Heck
claimed. come under the head Of improve
ments- The charter requires the Board
OF Finance to concur IN the expenditure
OF money. but Mr.. Edwards argued there
was no expenditure OF money in this in
stance and that the charter had made
other provision for the vacation of strsers-
THE RAILWAY CASE
Counsellor Charles Corbin. Of Collins &
Cor bin, made technical argument. re-
citing decisions and laws TO confirm what
Mr.. Edwards had argued, and among
other things cited the fact that the Board
of Finance did not concur in the vaca~
ton of Greene street. and was not asked
to do so. He claimed that this was q
good precedent.
Mr.. Collins followed his partner. He
said that the ground had been SO care
fully gone over by the proceeding law
yers thar there was nothing for him 10
say, and after pointing out number Of
legal objections raised 10 the proceedings
which simply confirmed Mr.. Corbin and
Mr.. Edwards in their views, gave way TO
ex-Judge Douglas. who closed the case
in an able manner.
1t was believed that the argument
would last all day, but at the outset
Judge Depue said he would only grant
each side three-fourths OF an hour, and
he held counsel to this.