New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-07-15
PROPERTY-OWNERS OBJECT.
an INJUNCTION AGAINST THE BROOKLYN
HEIGHTS COMPANY SOUGHT
JOHN NJ VAN WAGNER WANTS TO RESTRAIN THE
LAYING OF TRACKS IN ASHLAND PLACE

JOHN NJ VAN WAGNER WANTS TO RESTRAIN THE
LAYING OF TRACKS IN ASHLAND PLACE
THE CASE BEFORE JUSTICE OSBORNE.
When the property -owners on Rockwell Place
were surprised last Sun .ay morning TO see the
street in front OF their houses torn up and the
trolley tracks of the Brooklyn Heights Railroad
Company going down in short order. 1t made tho
householders on Ashland Place, which Is the next
street west. think a bit Rockwell Place is only
wide enough for one track and the Ashland Place
folks learned. after brief Investigation. that II
was tho intention of the Brooklyn Heights Road
to run the companion track to the one on Rockwell
Place along Ashland Place John NJ Van Wag-
ner. who lives at No. % Ashland Place. took the
initiative. and after canvassing the propertycwn-
ers on the street and getting them to sign a pro-
test against the entry of the road. consulted Will
lam Hughes. of the law firm OF Magner Hughes.
AS result Of his conference. Mr.. Hughes yester-
day afternoon obtained from Justice Osborne, OF
the Supreme Court. temporary Injunction re-
straining the Brooklyn Heights Company from
building its tracks on Ashland Place, with an or
der requiring the company to show cause next
Tuesday why the injunction should not be made
permanent. Mr.. Van Wagner alleges in his COM
plant that the tracks proposed through Ashland
Place and those through Rockwell Place to be
used TO connect the running out Fulton-st.
and Flatbush-ave. with the crosstown line. He
deposes that the employees OF the company have
offered money to the property owners the street
for their consent to the construction OF the road
but the consent has been unanimously refused.
He also says that the superintendent OF the COM
pany informed him that he might be ordered any
day to tear up the street Ashland Place and
begin the laying of tracks.
The complainant deposes that In 1893 the Com
mon Council granted TO the defendant company
permission to run its road through Ashland Place,
without the consent of even one-third of the prop
ertyowners to say nothing OF the majority consent
required by law. But permit for two
years only, and the company did nothing toward
laying its tracks in the street in that time: there
fore II is alleged that the permit Is void. AS TO
the contention that City Works Commissioner Will
lis has the power 10 grant permit for the work
II is contended tJat his power does apply In
this case, as the proposed work will not be al
teration OF the road the opinion of the Corpora
ton Counsel says IL Should be, but either q new
line or an extension. Therefore II IL alleged that
the Commissioner has right to grant a permit
unless the consent OF majority of the property
owners has been obtained.
Mr. Van Wagner declares that the street is a
a public nuisance. 1t would greatly damage the
value OF property, and mako II dangerous for chill
dren TO play on the street. He SAYS that he ap-
plies for the injunction because he believes that
unless the matter Is first settled in the courts
the de- ndant will begin the laying OF tracks on
Sunday. or late at night. when Injunction can
be obtained.