The sun., 1899-01-28
FIGHT AGAINST 4 TRACKS.
LMsTERDLM AVENUE PROPERTY
OWNERS HEARD.

| Justice Scott Tells Them the Legal Right
TO Lay the New Tracks IL the Only Ques-
tion-They Need Not Discuss the Dis
Finally Reserves Decision.
The motions OF ST. Michacl's Protestant
Episcopal Church and the Society for the Re-
lief OF the Destitute Blind for temporary in
junction against the laying OF two tracks on
Amsterdam avenue by the Forty second Street,
Manhattanv!lle and st. Nicholas Avenue Com
pany in addition TO the two tracks OF the Met
ropolitan Street Railway Company. were
argued together before Justice Scott OF the
Supreme Court yesterday. John A. Beall.
Henry Rowland Simon Sterne. and John q.
Coleman supported the motions and Edward
Lauterbach and William @. Trull were opposed.
Mr.. Beall said that st. Michaels Church cost
$675,0OO and has congregation OF 1000 per-
sons and large number OF Sunday scholars.
who would have to cross and recross the four
tracks at much hazard. His affldavits showed.
he said. that physicians OF the Hospital for the
Relief OF the Destitute Blind believed that the
operation OF the additional tracks would en-
danger their patients. Affldavits OF civil en-
gineers and electricians. which he produced.
showed that they considered that the addi-
tional tracks would greatly multiply the dan
gers to pedestrians He said that 10000 chill
dren in attendance on the public schools would
be mepaced.
Justice Scott said that 1t was not necessary to
demonstrate that four tracks were undesirable.
His experiences as Corporation Counsel had
shown that four tracks are disadvantage to
owners Of abutting property. The question
was solely one Of legal right.
Mr.. Beall contended that the consents OF
property owners were not sufficient when the
property held by each was properly valued. and
that some OF the consents were improperly
executed
Mr. Trull said that the road has the consent
Of the Railroad Commissioners. the Commits
sioner OF Highways. and the Commissioner of
Public Buildings Lighting and Supplies. and
has SS.0o0OO0 more conSents o. property own
been laid on the Bowery.. he said, tie lumber
Of accidents has decreased. At thp Brooklyn
Bridge entrance. he said, there are very. very
But. you can't compare the bridge entrance
with Amsterdam avenue" said the Judge;
The bridge entrance is merely railroad
Simon sterne declared that the application
parties against the rapacity Of a corporate
trust. The road was claiming the right to de-
stroy the easements of access and egress owned
by property owners in the avenue and the right
which they are entitled to under the Constitu..
Of this State. No legislative authority could
take properly away. and access and eEress were
man By so%s
persons, and could not be pared to Amster-
dam avenue. Electric cars in this city. he said,
are run at a speed Of f.teen miles an hour, and
four tracks Of such cars be consistent with a
public street? He continued: They say that
this was dead avenue before electric cars
avenue as to mortality with four tracks"
Henry E. Rowland said that the company
had forfeited any rights II had to lay the tracks.
Although it got legislative authority In 1884.
It had not built on Amsterdam avenue or tried
to do 30 until 1891, when other roads were
seeking franchise there.
Mr.. Trull said that the company had already
and that it would be a great hardship to enjoin
1t before the trial Of the action In which the
right to Injunction could be finally determined.
Justice Scott reserved decision.