Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-11-06
An IMPORTANT TRIAL.
The Final Test in the Suit of High
Street Property Owners
TO REMOVE A STREET RAILWAY
From in Front of Their Doors to Be Called
Up To-Day or Monday.
OTHER TRACTION ROADS INVOLVED

The appeal of the Central Traction Com.
pany from the decision of the lower cour
in the suit to compel the removal of thC
tracks from High street will be argued III
Supreme Court either to-day or Monday, il
appearing on io-dav's trial list. The case
Is considered by attorneys as the most i'm
portant of the present term. 1t not only
involves the rights OF property holders on
High street, but in case the lower court i.
sustained, it is claimed that nearly all the
othertraction companies in the city will loose
the rights of way over certain portions
of their road. The , case has been
bitterly contested from the time the first
complaint was filed. Law ami politics have
been mixed in equal proportions during Its
progress, but at every move the property
owners have been the winners. The motor
hill passed by the last Legislature was the
biggest card played bv the. Traction people.
1t was intended to cover the weak joints of
The defendants case, but by hard political
hustling the Governor was induced
to veto it, The attorneys who will
appear before the Supreme Court are
George Shiras, Jr., c. C. Dickey and
George Shiras, III, for the plaintiffs, and
W. A. Stone and ?. C. knox for the de-
frndants
Deny the Right to Lease Franchises.
The proceeding is on bill in equity filed
by several plaintiffs owning lots fronting
on High street against the Central Trac-
tiOn Company and its officers TO enjoin the
construction of passenger railway tracks
and cable conduits upon that street and the
running of cars thereon. The tracks are the
property OF the Central Passenger Railway
Company, the old horse car line, and are in
possession of the Traction Company, which
is operating the railway and branches of
the Passenger Company under contract with
The latter company The tracks on High
street are laid as a branch of the Passenger
Company's line, and the ground is taken by
the property owners that the Traction Com
pany had no right to extend the tracks on
streets not occupied by the Passenger
Company. 1t is also held that under existing
laws a traction company has no right to lease
its franchises On this ground, if the
point is sustained, the Pittsburg, Duquesne
and Pleasant Valley roads Will not have
legal rights of way over the greater por-
tions of their lines, and if the point that
lessee does not have the right to extend the
lines of the lessor is sustained, the Fifth
avenue line viii be liable to ejectment from
Fifth avenue below Smithfield street
Will Involve All the Street Railways.
The case has been decided in favor of the
property owners by the master and the
lower court. The Supreme Court is final,
and if against the Traction Company, it
will be the forerunner of litigation that will
throw almost every road in the city into the
courts.
In their paper book, the attorneys for the
property owners say:
The contest waged between the lot owners
on tins street, the majority of whom have
their life earnings in the humble residences
thereon, aud the Traction Company has be-
come cause celebre. Even municipal and
state legislation have, since the commence
ment of this Litigation, been invoked in vain
TO legaliZe what the evidence will show was,
from the very start, an uncalled for and
unnecessary invasion of the compartments
rights. For the purpose of saving about
81 800 the Central Traction Company laid
double tracks and deep conduits on a popu-
Ions street. the roadway of which is but %
feet wide; and this entry too, made in open
defiance. OF State and municipal law, the
prompt protest of the High street residents
and the significant and timely warnings of
the court below. Had the company laid but
one track on High street and the second on
Tunnel street, it is entirely probable that
tue complainants would have remained
silent upon the want of corporate authority
10 occupy this street at all.
Reference is made to the following from
the defendants argument:
lie 1.-THE complainant) sustains no pecu-
liar or private injury, unless there is an in
vasion of his peculiar and private right, and
wOulg "A nTOnnSifinn n
hold that the right of the plaintiff to main
tain bill, depended upon the distance from
the curb in front of his property within
which the railway tracks were laid.
Says the Property Is Damaged.
Commenting on this. the plaintiffs say:
This is unfair and misleading in that it
singles out but one of the many causes of in
iury. which in their cumulative character
must be considered in judging the effect of
continuing trespass and the right for private
relief Further than that, the question of
distance herein referred to, is often peril
nent in equity proceedings. A powder mill
may be located near a town, but never with
in it, a trip hammer may be operated within
mill property and eniO1ned if placed need
iessly close to or against private residence;
and so here, the placing of double tracks
and conduits on a 2l-foot roadway must
necessarily injure the aDutting property
owners to an incalcuiable and special de-
gree, while having little or no effect upon
the general public. Though traffic and the
conveyance of goods and persons in transitu
in no wise injured. But when it is con-
sidered that it has already been proved by
the Court after careful review of the testi-
mony that the special injury suffered
amounts to a depreciation of 80 per centum
IN the marketable value of abutting prop
erty the question should be considered
settled.
With reference to the point that one COM
pany has not the right to lease its franchises
10 another, the argument says:
Ali traction railway companies organized
like the present defendant under the motor
act of 1887, have no independent right to
enter upon and occupy any street not
already occupied by street passenger rail
way companies, and then only under a lease
or contract with such passenger railway
companies as may possess power to transfer
their franchises and road. In this connec-
tion it is interesting, for the purpose of Illus
tration and for the purpose OF showing the
apparent necessity for a separate act
regulating the lessor, to examine just
what the State Legislature did and
failed TO do in properly organizing these
new classes OF corporations. The Uegisla-
tive records show for instance that AN
effort was made at the session of 1889 to have
complement to this act of 1887 passed
authorizing street passenger railway COM
panies to lease their franchises and roads to
traction companies. This measure was de-
featcd on tie alleged ground that the bill as
framed faile4 to properly protect the minor
ATTY stockholders in said lessor companies,
and that the law authorizing the leasing of
entire franchises of a street railway COM
pany to a motor company should be so
framed as to prevent a bare majority of the |
stockholders in such passenger railway COM |
panv tall Of which maj ority might be stock |
holders in the traction company from leas- |
ing the road and franchises to the traction |
lessee for a nominal consideration and for |
an indefinite period.
a dividend of 81 Per Cent. .
The oppression practiced by the defend |