The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1897-05-15
RAILWAY WINS.
Its Tracks Can Cross the Railroad at Third
or Fourth streets Chancellor so
Decides This Morning.

| Chancellor Nicholson this morning
handed down his answer to the injunction
suit OF the Philadelphia Wilmington and
| Baltimore Railrad Company vs. the Will
mington City Railway Company 1t
| denied the motion for an injunction pre-.
venting the railway company from CROSS
ing the railroad tracks at either Third or
Fourth street and therefore opens the vii.
mington and New Castle Railway from
Fourth and Market streets to New Castle.
Ii was complete Knockout for the rail-
road company and one which is being dis
cussed fayrably throughout the city.
When the Chancellor opened the Court
Willard Salisbury, representing the rail.
way company and Andrew G. Gray for
the railroad Company were present. The
Chancellor first reviewed the case and
argument then remarked. "a careful
examination of the pleadings and proof
has satisfied me that the complainant In
this case has failed to show any special
damage.
1t is true that 1t has alleged that it nd.
vised and believes and therefore AYERS,
that the stretching of said trolley wire
across the tracks of said company, and
the laying of the necessary ground wires
Tor the operation of said electric read over
SAID crossings upon said Third street or
said Fourth street would be attended with
great danger to the employees and servants
OF said complainant and would most seri.
ously Interfere with the due operation Of
said road Of said complainant at said
crossing.
But the answer denies all this allegation
and alleges that the wires would be- strung
twenty two feet above the ground, out Of
the way OF any possible Interference with
compliments trains and employees. There
are no aihdavits In support Of this allega-
tion OF the bill and tho answer being re-
and hot, ,I,- l..
daVit must control in the present appllca-
ton.
After carefully considering and weigh.
ing the affidavits, l am satisfied that it
docs not clearly appear from them that
the crossing under the trolley system at
this point would be more dangerous and
q greater menace to Tho c0mplainant's
traffic than would the crossing by horse
power, against which no injunction is
asked, SO that even should it be granted
that these allegations are relevant and
material to this application, yet as the evil
dence before me leaves the relative danger
to railroad crossing Of the two systems
an unsettled question. they cannot avail
the complainant, since in the application
for preliminary injunction the com.
plalnant's case must be clearly made
out
AS has been seen already the complain.
ant does not claim any property rights as |
an abutter or owner in fee, which will be |
affected by tho proposed crossing OF Its |
right of way by tho respondent |
under the trolley system, and does
not claim to be in danger Of re.
ceiving any damages other than those
already stated, it is therefore manifest that
1t has no standing in this court for Its APP
pilcatlon fora preliminary injunction and
that for the purpose of this motion 1t is
not open to the court to consider tho qucs.
ton, whether the respondent railway COM
pany has, or has not power or authority,
under its charter, or under the laws of
Delaware, to use electricity as motive
power for tho propulsion Of its cars in
Wilmington.
There Is more han one way of obtain
ing Judicial termination of that question
but the proceeding now pending before 4
this court is not one of them.
Arguments OF the learned counsel have
been exceptionally elaborate, exhausting
the whole field of inquiry. l have exam
lned the vast number Of cases cited by
and have given my attentive
to the many points which
have been so iDgeniously raised and elabo-
rated by them, but do not deem it necos-
'ary in this opinion to discuss any other
th"n those ! have already presented which
believe to be conclusive of the questions
1t issue Il will deny the motion for II
preliminary injunction and discuss the
rule In this case,