New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-08
ELEVATED TRAINS MAY SIOP.
THE CORPORATION THREATENED.

nNry THE CONVENIENCE or THE PUBLIC SAVED
1T FROM A PERMANENT INJUNCTIoN'
After all the threats which have been hlaue
about granting absolute inunctions against Vh'
elevated railroad company, it appears 'ha' '"o
company has now got itself in Don Whcrc i''
attorneys will have to back down from posi'lon
which they have taken or such an lhJulct'on VIII
I've issued. Emily l.. Watson began sun 10 IT,
cover indemnity for damages to hcr property "V
No. 243 Grccnwich-st. The suit was ID 'he uSu"i
form for an Injunction. The courts lnVarapN'
however. allow the company 10 give PROOF 10 oe-
tcrmine the amount of damages TO he Paid III
lieu of having an injunction issued. At the trlal
of this case the company's attorneys objected TO
the introduction of any evidence I" show the dam
ages to the property in question:
Judge Ingraham, before whom the case was
tried. upheld the objection to the Introduction of
the testimony, but warned the conpanyS at
torncys that they were placing themselves in an
exceedingly prccarious position. In giving Iuds-
ment. Judge Tngraham said he was unable 10 as
certain the amount of money damages and ne
granted an absolute Injunction against the road
The company Immediately secured temporary
stay of the operation of the injunction from
Justice OI;rien and asked to have the stay made
permanent, pending appeal 10 the General Term
Of the Sup:cme Court. Justice O'Bncn handed
down an opinion upon that application yesterday
Justice 0Bricn does not finally decide the case
but gives the railroad company another opportunity
to show what tie money damages were: 50 an
alternative rather than an absolute injunction.
may he issued He says in the opinion;
in common with the other " cs who have
had these cases before them. | recognize fully the
wisdom of the conclusion reached OF permitting
an alternative 10 the issuance of an injunction. the
pavment by the defendant Of of money
equivalent To tnc damages done This has been duc
10 consideration Of the great public inconvenience
that would result by the stoppagc Of the de-
fendants road. | feel satisfied, however the
public. though Subjected 10 great Inconvenience.
would not complain of an effort made 10 enforce
the deliberate judgment of tie Court. The qucs-
tion, therefore. Is, shall the railroad. after hIin.
afforded an opportunity of compcrsatinc the owrcr
of this property tor its unlawful trc>pasS. and
having left the Court without means oi determine
Ing such damages, and the plaintiff having thereby
become entitled to an absolute Injunction. have
the Judgment against il enforced? For, Whatever
injury may flow To- defendant or Inconvenience 10
the public the defendant alone Is chargcahlc.
The Court cannot. with any regard 10 rs own
DEGREES, sanction the position assumed 10y the
defendant. of refusing 10 afford an opportunity or
determining the damages done To the properly
owner. and then. Wien an injunction Is granted,
consent that this shall he rendered nuGatofN hN a
stay. | am. in view n the Interests ol the
travelling public disposed stI! 10 afford de-
fendaat means of relieving tscf OF the effect
Of the injunction. provided il viii accept the
condition and avail itself of the opportunity
afforded by agreeing aS suggested 10 an arbltra-
tlOn OF the question as TO the amount oi IlaInuu
damages, and stipuiaIiug that when the amount IS
fixed il will pay the same. together with the
rental damages, as determined hV the JuILmeni.
Unless these conditions are accepted. the appct-
ton for stay should he denied and an absolute
lnjunHtiOn granted