The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-05-12
THE WARRING RAILWAYS
Governor Bedle's Idea of Peaceful
Possession Of the Grifing
Iron Works Strip.

ris Canal from the Newark eand New
York Railroad Company's embankment
to Communipaw avenue, was begun yes
terday at the Chancery Chambers. Ex-
Chancellor Williamson and Governor
Bedle appeared for the Lafayette Company
and Messrs. Collins e. Corbin represented
the Lehigh Valley people. MIR. Corbin
began proceedings by plnning several
maps Of the property against the wall and
then he read several a1idavits.
The first affidavit was by Julius G.
Hockie, the engineer of the Lehigh Valley
Company. This set forth that the Morris
Canal Company. which the Lehigh Valley
Railroad Company now holds as lessee.
is the owner Of strip Of land thirty feet
wide adjoining the tow path Of the canal
to the east, at the place in dispute. This
strip came into possession OF the Canal
Company from the Holdefn estate.
The route Of the Lafayetts Railroad as
filed Is 100 feet wide and includes that
thirty foot strip. The affidavit then re-
hearsed the work done by the Lafayette
Railroad since its incorporation, and re-
lated the circumstances attendant upon
the laying Of the track and the building
Of the fence along the tow path This
fence was SO close to the tow path that
there was not sufficient room for the
horses pulling the canal boats to walk.
Mr.. Hockie in his affidavit claimed that
IL was not necessary for the Lafayette
Railway to encroach upon the thirty foot
strip, AS 1t had thirty feet of its own be-
tween the eastern boundary Of the thirty
feet in dispute and the eastern boundary
Of its own property. It would only
have to move its tracks q short
distance to the east to keep OF the
tow path and there was no reason for the
construction Of the track where it then was
ant m Of
the canal The Lafayette railroad had
done but little business, and made no
effort to build until lately. This thirty
foot slip. Mr.. Hockie continued, was what
was known as a spoil bank. and was used
for dumping the refuse dredged from the
canal. and for storing material needed in
repaving the canal. The big ditch at
that place was below high water, and,
in case of nigh tide, was apt to overflow.
THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY IN 1861.
Cornelius Vreeland, civil engineer Of
this city, made an affidavit, to which was
annexed a map of the property in ques-
tion made by him in 1867. The property
was on the map in the name Of the Morris
Canal.
Joseph Randolph. president of the
Morris Canal Company, swore that he
had been connected with the company in
various capacities since 1865. He had
always understood that the thirty foot
strip in dispute was the property of the
Canal Company. When the Newark and
New YORK Railroad was built the rail-
road company recognized the Canal Com
pany's title so far as TO ask permission to
build an aoutment on this strip some dis
tance south Of the location of the Lafay-
ette Company's tracks.
II. Stanley Goodwin, general eastern
agent of the Lehigh Valley Railroad
Company, told how he had discovered
the Central's men at work laying the
track, and had ordered them off
Jonn Small, who has been employed by
the Canal Company since 1850, and who
previous to that time navigated q boat on
the canal, knew that the Canal Company
always claimed to own that property.
Tine Griffing Iron Works at one time asked
permission from the Canal Company TO
mako q road frou; its forndr!es 20 Com
munipaw avenue. On April 15 Mr.. Small
swore he found that a gang of Central
Railroad workmen had built fence on
the tow path so that the horses towing
boats could not pass, and the canal REQ
pie were obliged to pole the boats around.
The balance OF Mr.. SmalPs stfldavit de alt
with his part in the war over the fence.
James Baker, who has been employed
by the Canal Company since 1850, swore
that the company always claimed to own
the thirty foot strip and had used it as
tow path and spoil bank. John +. ID. Car
lin, now foreman of the Jersey City dock,
pany since 1870 and be swore that the
company had used the land in dispute
ever since he had been in its employ. He
also referred TO the recognition of the
company's claim by the Grihlng Iron
Works in asking permission TO make
roadway over the strip.
Walter G. Berg, with the title of 'sPrin-
eipal assistant engineer, Lehigh Valley
Railroad Company" testified as TO the in-
definiteness of the route Of the Lafayette
railroad as filed in the Secretary of States
Office, and speculated as to the various
things il might mean.
Ex-CHANcELLoR wILLIAMsoN's ARGUMENT.
When Mr.. Collins had finished reading
the affidayits, Ex-Cnancellor Williamson
claimed that three-fourths of the facts in
the afiidayits were new after, and his
side wanted an opportunity TO meet them.
1t was, however, undisputed that the
Lafayette Railroad had been co instructed
six months on land, which the company
had purchased, and to which it thought
and still thought it had title. The road
was in operation two months before the
canal closed, and yet nothing was said
about It's interfering with the operation
of the canal.
Mr.. Charles Corbin replied and said
that even il rhe Central people did show
that they did not interfere with the oper-
alton OF the canal would that entitle
them to an injunction The Lenlgh Val
lev had shown thab the Ce1Lfdl people
were trespassers upon their land Tor
which they had no use, and which being
the property Of a corporation which was
using 1t, they could not condemn He
did not see on what ground the other side
wanted time to take depositions-
Mr.. Collins claimed that the Central
people were building this road on the very
property in dispute, and did not think
that the other side should have any more
time This brought Governor Bedle to
his feet with an earnest avowal that the
Central people have kept faith with the
Court and not violated the terms OF the
injunction. The Ex-Governor then re-
hearsed the contents of the bill. He said
tnat the Lehigh Valley people had organ
lied railroad since the Lafayette com
pany had been organized, and were lay
ing track between the Lafayette tracks
and the canal. He then claimed that the
afidavits of the Leh1gh Valley people
were spurious, and argued that the com
pany should answer the bill he claimed
that the Central people were IN peaceful
possession of the property.
rs your possession peaceful when You
ask the Court TO protect your asked the
Chancellor.
Certainly, sir.p quickly retorted the
Ex-Governor, ''our possession Is peaceful
and we ask the Court to protect US against
the threats of these people.
The matter then resolved itself into
running debate between the four counsel
which was more or less spicy. Finally
the Chancellor said that he would take
the papers and render decision next