New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-09-27
MRS. GROH'S HIGH FENCE.
JUDGE BARRETT HOLDS SHE HAS A RIGHT
TO BUILD 1T.

THE STRUCTURE AS LEGAL AZ Mr.. VOLTS FIX
TENsloN-DIssoLcTIoN OF THE INJUNCTION
The contest between Abraham Wolf, OF the firm
OF Kuhn Loeb co. and Miss Julia Groh over
the threatened erection by the latter OF an iron
fence twenty five feet high between the adjoining
properties at Nos II and ~ West Ninety -nrst-s''
was carried on Ia the Suprem Court yesterday De-
fore Judge Barrett and number OF the adnerehs
Of both sides were present 10 watch me lts'i pa'e
The circumstances OF the warfare have aifeauy pee"
fully described in The Tribune. Because OF MI
VOLTS erection OF q three-story brick extension ~
the rear yard Of No, A. West Ninety-nrst-st MIS-
t;roh prepared 70 build the fence In question DC
tween her rear yard at No. 40 and the extension"
from which it would shut eff light and air Ihen
Mr. Won got a temporary injunction from J"use
Beekman TO prevent the erection OF the renee
The matter came up In the Supreme Court yes
terday on a motion made by julius rra"N' io'
Wolff to have the Injunction made permanent MT
Frank went through the building laws. ana all ne
could and n show Judge Barrett was that wooden
fences could not be more than ten feet Nigh Ihere
is nothing In the law about iron fences ana MI
Frank argued from the premises that, as they were
not allowed by the Law. they couid not De ou'
The Court, however. he'd exactly the opposite
that as there was nothing In the law to prohibit
the iron fence II could be offence under the law
J. g. Fanmer representing Mrs GrOh submitted I'd
-
which ne declared that Mrs. Grohs property won u
extension. and that adjoining property WOULD De DC
rendered practically uninhabiabe Tor me want % OF
light and air Thee were also ahidavts rom m' r.
Groh which averred that there was no privacy IN
her house or yard since the extension was Dn"''
and others to like effect. ,,,,u ,,
Judge Barrett then said that II Mr.. WON $1,000
on his rights under the law. he had no case mere
IL nothing In the law" declared the Court which
says that an iron fence cannot be erected ny Il
householder on his property. The fence. from your
own showing ~ not public nuisance, ana thete ~
simply n question between the TWO owners as 10
whether II ls desirable. You calm that the renee
annoya YOU and Mrs Groh claims that me ex.
tension annoys her. She could with perfect righ'
build similar extension as close as the renee. ,
I'VE recognize that" said Mr. Frank put tnat Is
one OF the risks took In buying the properly;
We could not count on fence built so az to wall
Judge Barrett intima.ed that the defendant t., ava
not figure on the building OF nm extension three
Inches from her windows. and said That lie wouId
dissolve the Injunction. r., .
Mr. Frank asked the Court to grant a stay for q
few weeks which could work no harm to the de.
PENDANT so that no could hay the matter settled
by the General Term -, a,
Judge Barrett also denied this saying that the
plaintiff had his proper remedy at the trial OF the
action and that, II the fence was adJudged nui.
sance II could be taken down. Mr.. Flammer said
this would be done. and Judge Barrett dismissed
the case.