The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-09-17
CONDUITS UNDER SIDEWALKS,
Judge Brown Refuses to Grant an
Injunction.

Yesterday morning three separate appli-
cations were filed with Judge Brown, of
the Circuit Court, for injunctions to pre-
vent the Central Union Telephone Com
pany laying it's conduits in the sidewalk
of Ohio street. The suits were filed by
Mary f. Hume, owner of the property oc-
cupied by DR.. Hays, next door to the
Marion Club, and also owner of the first
property west, by Mrs. Hannah A. Mansur
owner of the Marion Club property, and
by ID. p. E"win representing the Denison
Hotel Company. The complaints all fol-
lowed the same form, and set out that the
defendant company was at work digging
trenches in the part of the street occupied
by the sidewalk for the purpose of LAYING
permanent conduits without the consent of
the property. owners. 1t was shown that
the compliments were contemplating the
use of the space under the sidewalks for
constructing vaults and store rooms and it
was claimed that the law gave this space
to the property owner for such use. AS the
company doing this work under CON
tract with the city the city was made a
defendant in the cases.
Judge Brown set o'clock yesterday
afternoon as the time for hearing the argu-
ment of attorneys for and against the in
junction. At that time each of the de-
PENDANTS flied demurrers to each of the
complaints and upon the demurrers the
argument was heard. Attorney Horace
Smith, representing the Central Union com
pany said that the company was onerafina
under contract with the Board of Works
of the city of indianapolis and that the
work was being done under the supervision
Section 20, he said, gives the city the right
to regulate ali structures ION, over or
under the sidewalks, and the city may
control the placing of gas, water and cleo
trlclty conductors and has the power to
authorize by contract the use for such pur-
pose Of the streets, alleys and public places.
Mr. Smith cited the case of the State
against Burdett, in which it was held that
that the sidewalk is a part Of the street.
The property owner, he said. owned the
rights of the public which were paramount
to those of the individual.
Mr.. Smith was followed in the argument
by Edward Gates. Il son of a. b. Gates
who is interested in the Phoenix Telephone
Company. He said the plaintiffs proceeded
owner by law and by legislative grant had
right to use the property under the side
walk, and, second, that in all ordinances
the word street" was not used in its gem
eric sense. but only applying to the road
way of the street. He then began citing
New York cases to make his argument
bat was called down and informed that in
New York the city owned the streets in
fee simple and the law there would not
apply here. He dwelt prominently upon the
fact that the property owner was entitled
the property line to line within two feet
of the curb
City Attorney Curtis pointed out the fact
that according 10 this statement of the
young attorney the complaints We're de-
fective, for from the complaints ii could
not be ascertained whether the defendant
company was digging in the two-foot strip
or the larger portion of the sidewalk
The allegation that the company is dig
ginS in the part claimed by the property
owner would be sufficient to cover that"
said Gates.
Not in Injunction proceedings insisted
Captain Curtis.
Judge Brown, after hearing all the argu-
rnent, sustained the demurrers. not on the
technical point raised by Captain Curtis
however, but on the merits of the com
plants finding that they did not state facts
sufficient to constitute cause of action.
This settles the cases so far the COM
plants filed yesterday are concerned and
unless some further steps are taken BY the
property owners the telephone company
may continue putting its conduits under
sidewalks.