The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-06-17
Hoboken's Council Refused
an nAaeton Against
the NpHh hudson R.
r. Company
HcEgHlHCELAaR STEVENS OPINION
Decides That There is no ordin-
anee Affecting the Repairs !.
on Washington Street
Tracks.

Vice Chancellor Stevens this morning
made known his decision in the case OF
the Mayor and Town Council of Hoboken
against the North Hudson County Rail-
road Company for an injunction prohibits
ing the company from repairing it's tracks
on Washington street. The Vice Chan
cellor decided that the city had no ordin-
ances in which it could lawfully inter
fere with the company. An exact copy
of the decision is appended
IN CHANCERY OF N. J.
Between the Mayor and Council of the
City OF Hoboloen and the North Hudson
County Railway Company.
On the ninth day of the present month
the North Hudson County Railway Com
pany commenced to relay its tracks on
washington street. Because of the fact
that the old ties had become rotten and
the old rails worn out, it was the inten-
ton of the company to replace them
with new rails of an improved pattern.
laid upon new sleepers. The proof is
that he work is being done as expe-
ditiously and with as little obstruction
and inc~onvenience to the public as is
practicable.
On june 10 the Common Council of the
city held a meeting at which 1t passed
a resolution directing the Street Com
missioner to stop the work; for what
reason the resolution itself does not
state. On June IL the Street Commits
sioner notified the company to stop work
until It had obtained the consent of the
Committee on Streets and the Street
Commissioners. The company declined to
DO SO, hence h application for an in
junction.
The defendant is the successor of the
Hoboken and Wehawken Horse Rail-
way Company. This last named COM
pany derived its rights to lay its tracks
on washington street, from the Bergen
'lI1rnniKR GAYnnanU IN xyhioh h-A n 49,
plement to its charter in 1853, was ac-
corded the right to lay down upon its
road, or any part thereof, such track
or tracks of iron rails as it might deem
necessary.
It is this road and certain other roads
which the North Hudson County Railway
Is. by the language Of Section
z OF the Act of 1871. empowered to keep
maintain and operate in its own rame and
right. In order that it may properly main
tain and operate them it must of course
this application is only whether If the
company desires to repair 1t must first
secure the consent of the Council of the
Street Committee or the Superintendent
By the tenth section of the Act OF 1866 it
is provided that the defendant company
shall be liable to all proper municipal
well be held that the city has the right
to provide by ordinance how, in making
repairs, the street shall be torn up, the
P&t u CldlQ, ClC. NJ SuCIl OIQlIld1Ce
in reference to the tracks of this company
has been shown. 1t appears to be doubt
ful. whether the ordinance of January 4.
1860, referred to in the bill as the basis
Of this proceeding. ever took effect. but
II 1t did. the grant was only to continue
for Twenty-Five years from the time of
to contain any provisions relative to how
tracks once laid should be relaid or re-
paired. The company ~ not therefore in
q manner OF relaying lts tracks violating
right to relay its tracks whenever nee
essary in order that it may properly per-
form it's duty to the public ii would seem
clear that it cannot be arbitrarily stop
ped by the Council of the city from So
doing. 1t Is not shown that the coprpany
Is doing the work in an improper manner.
The contrary Is shown. The. statute does
not direct that the cmpan shall make
application to the Street Commissioner
the Council or the committee before be.
ginning the work., and no ordinance AZ
tempts to do so. As the company does
not appear to be acting i'll any respect ille-
gallys. do noq think a preliminary in
Junction should issue"
CSigned)
The officials of the railroad company
were seen this morning and they said that
a gang of men would be- put to work as
soon as the rain stopped.
Councilman Offermann, the most ardent
kicker against the company. was very
mad this morning. To a Jersey City
News reporter he said
well what could you expect when the
company had the Mayor, the Corporation
Attorney and the Street Commissioner
with. it?"-
VIVA do YOU mean when you say that
the Corporation Attorney was with the
company? Didn't he make a fight in
your interest, and besides your own pri-
vate lawyer was there?" the reporter
asked.
"Oh. yes; the Corporation Attorney did
wonderfully, wonderfully indeed" he re-
away in a. subdued rage
He was bothered all day long by a
stream of callers, who chaffed him upon
his action against the company just be-
cause the company refused to bow down
to a couple of members of the Council,
who are upon the Committee on Streets.