New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-27
J.. d. CRIMMINS LOSES.
HE WILL BE IN CONTEMPT UNLESS HE
PAYS $500 FOR COUNSEL FEES.

THE THIRTY -FoURTH-sT ROAD WAS BUILT IL
LEGALLY, BUT SUFFICIENT CONSENTS
HAVE NOW BEEN OBTAINED
Justice Truax in Supreme Court. Chambers, yes
,ordav handed down his decisions upon the appli-
cations that were made to him seVera weeks aso
to punish the officers of the Thirty-fourth street
railroad Company and John d. Crimmins Tor con-
ten,nt of court for trucng the railroad through
that street in violation of judgment "hich the
proparty-owners obtained on May a. l'o'' Which ie
strained the building OF the road unless legal autho
itv for such construction should be SUBSEQUENTLY,
obtained A motion had also been made in behalf
of Mrs Martha Wysong, the owner OF no ~ ''ds'
Thirty fourth-st for the continuance OF an nlunc-
ton restraining the company from operating ks
road through that street. The justice grams the
motion to punish for contempt unless the nelehudh'
pays the plaintiffs counsel the sum OF sl'v". Inc
Injunction In the case of Mrs Wysong is TO be va
Gated upon the defendants paying the plaintH :
counsel $500 and STIMULATING to allow the piahui
TO discontinue the action without costs In the lat
ter cas- the Judge says that at the time the acuoh
was begun the railroad did not have the requisite
number of consents. but it has since obtained then'
and to-day has the right to construct its road.
In respect to the motion to punish the officers OF
the railroad company for contempt the Judge says;
II the defendant has the consents Of the owners
Of one-half in value OF the property on InlI'y
fourth-st II has the right 20 construct the road II
it has not such consents 1t has disobeyed the yudg-
nent of the court and must be punished as Tor q
contempt The plaintiffs say that the total assessed
valuation of property rhlryfourtn-st IL sli'-
IA 100 ono-haif Of which IS $581225) ana that the
Defendant has obtained consents amounting 20
81 40 500 1891 500 Of which have been revoked ieaV-
ing 81 Si 800 of unrevokci consents. plaintiffs can
that from this amount very large sum snOul ne
deducted because consents have been obtained since
the work was begun. because some or the consents
are conditional and because some were gwen py
persons who did have authority 10 give them
The Judge finds that there are consents repre-
sontIng S722jOo that invalid which sum, de-
Quoted from the seSi3.Oo. leaves %,l2csOo OF valid
consents or s2s55O more than one-half OF the
assessed valuation Of property on Thirty-fourth-st.
He says:
But the defendant did not have all these con
sents the time II began TO construct the l0tn;
II admits that consents To the amount or Sboo, ~
have been obtained since Il began 10 construct tne
road. and It attempts 10 justify Its act IN Degt-
ming to construct the road by saying that IL was
advised by counsel that all said consents were
valid If the defendant IA allowed an the con-
diticnal consents that have allowed H. Dn' not
allowed the consents that have been revoked or
that were excluded because made by executors or
Others having no power to make them, II ga NOT
have tho consents of half OF the owners OF prop
ertv on Thirty fOurth-st and therefore II was not
authorized 10 construct the road. But as " now
has enough consents. II would be nreesonaole TO
compel IL undo the work ~ has done IL also
would be unjust 10 compel plaintins to pear the
expense Of the litigation.