The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-02-11
P. R. R. TO The BAR
Chancellor McGill Asked to
%sequester the Com
pany's Property.
MR.. vREDENBURGH's ANSWER
Claims That an Appeal From the
Decree Was Filed and There
fore it was Imperative.
vREDENBURGH's ANSWER

The fight over the Point of Rocks tun-
mel. which has resolved itself into an ac-
ton for an attachment for contempt and
representation of the Pennsylvania Rail
road Company's property in Hudson county.
and IN Injunction against the National
Docks Railroad Company. was heard be-
fore the Chancellor this afternoon in
Chambers
The contempt proceedings were taken
up first. and it wa the opinion among
the counsel engaged that the injunction
proceedings being merely an incident,
would stand or fall by the decision Of
the Chancellor in the first case
As readers of 1.-THE News will recol-
lect. the contempt proceedings We're be-
gun on the ground that the Pennsylvania
Railroad in neglecting to remove their
cars from the tracks over the tunnel,
had treated par contumace a n de-
cree filed in Chancerys January, 1886, en-
Joining them not to Interfere with the
construction work of the National Docks
Company. The injunction was TO pre-
vent the National Docks people from
damaging the property of the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company.
In court at the argument this after
moor We're Messrs. James B. Vreden-
burgh. Richard v. Lindabury and Frank
Bergen. for the P. R. R.. and Messrs.
Charles L. Corbin and Charles D.
Thompson for the Docks Connecting
Company. Ex-Governor George t.
Werts, Colonel Charles Sterling and
Superintendent E. f. Brooks were inter
ested spectators.
Mr. Charles d. Thompson opened the
proceedings by reading the petition Of the
National Docks Company asking hat the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company should
be adjudged in contempt. The petition
went over the history of the fight. and ITS
latest details. all of which are familiar
matters. He said that the defendant COM
pany had kept cars on tracks /, 2 and 3
of the yard, thereby preventing the
complainants from completing the arch of
the tunnel.
When Mr.. Thompson had finished Coun-
sellor V~redenburgh began his answer BY
producing documents showing that the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company had APP
pealed the decree. which the other side
claim is treated with contempt. mus an
nouncing the Pennsylvania Railroad Com
pany's defense to the contempt proceed
ings to be that the appeal acted as a
stay to the decree. and as that was in
allegiance by means OF this appeal, there
COulQ DC lO COl4iCl1pL
Then reading the answer Mr.. Vreden-
hurgh read an affidavit appended there
TO, from Superintendent E. F: Brooks of
the Railroad Company, that he was ad-
vised by his counsel that the decree
was imperative because of the filing Of
the appeal.
Mr.. Thompson was In the midst of
telling the Court the history of the seven
years fight when Mr.. Lindabury inter-
rupted, saying that the only question
before the Court was whether or not the
appeal of the decree acted as a writ Of
supersedeas.
Lindabury's objection, saying-@It's a
Let Mr.. Thompson go on with his argu-
ment-"
Zone moment, Mr.. Corbin,'' said the
Chancellor. reaching for his gavel; pro-
coed, Mr.. Thompson" and the recital of
the main issue proceeded. Beginning
with a history of the struggle and the
first conflict, Mr.. Thompson said that MS
clients obtained, by lawful judgments and
DECISIONS of the Court, to go on with
their work. The Pennsylvania Railroad
Company had arrogated to itself the
right to set at naught the law of the
State. The Pennsylvania Company, he
when we obtained that decree the
Pennsylvania willfully d~isregarded And
defied that order of this Court. In fact,
1t is anarchy. and it resolves itself into
a question, Shall We have law and order
or .not'?'
Mr.. Thompson's first point was that the
decree was binding without a writ.
The case was on at the time of going
to press.