The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-02-24
CITY BEATEN
Vice Chancellor Pitney
Hands Down. His Opin-
ion in the Thirteenth
Street Fight.
upHoLDs D. /. d ". R. RS CLAIM
Jarvis Leases to the Piers
Are Extinct and Dsdica-
ton Of strip Not
Proven.
STRIP A PRIVATE WAY
STRIP A PRIVATE WAY

Chancellor FltHsy tiiis
handed down his opinion in the suis
brought by the D., L. and w X r. ~.
and Morris and Essex Railroad Company
against the Mayor and Aldermen OF ser
sev citv and Jersey City Electric Light
CO in reference to the long fought Tor
nossession of the strip Of Thirteenth
street. near the river. The Vice-Chancel-
lor fnds for the railroad companies IN
the following language
.sThe effect then of all the evidence on
nv mind is that there has been no dedi-
cation of the strip of land to the pubic
use of a highway. Whatever use IN the
nature of public use has been enjoyed
was merely that Of a private way ieadlns
to and from the docks, which were never
public docks, and such use was never OF
right. but in ali cases was pernissive-
will advise a decree for the complain
ants.
This important suit was brought by the
railroad companies who claimed posses
sion of 4 part of Thirteenth street, for
merly North Fifth street. They set up
a conveyance and release from the State
of any rights to the land which the pup
lie may have acquired therein. This re-
lease was in the form Of two grants py
the Governor and the Riparian Commits
sioners to the Jersey Improvement Com
many. former owner of the premises,
made under the act of April s. ISL In
SUPPORT of the contention the railroad
companies relied upon the case of the
city Of Elizabeth VS.. the Central Railroad
Co, which followed the decision in the
several cases known as the Hoboken
cases. made by the United States Su-
preme Court These arguments were ad-
vanced by the late Counselor Flavel Nc
Gee.
The then Corporation Counsel Allan L.
McDermott and present City Attorney
John w. Queen presented the argument
for Jersey City. In the main they claimed
that Jersey City had right TO take pos
session of certain portion Of the high
way by reason of its being in law II not
In fact a public highway
In March. 1885, the employees of the
Jersey City Electric Light CO., acting
under authority of the Street and Water
Board Commissioners, entered on the
strip in dispute for the purpose of erect
ling poles to string wires for electro
lights. The railroad companies filed bill
10 restrain them and an Injunction was
granted by the late Chancellor McGili.
Jersey Clay alone answered the bill and
a large mass of testimony was taken be-
fore master.
In The argument Mr. MCGEE said that
the acts threatened by Jersey City meant
taking the company's property without
making or proposing to make compensa-
ton. and besides they would work ir-
reparable injury in seriously obstructing
the operations of the companies rail-
roads. The defendants denied that there
was any dedication of the strip to the
city. On this point the opinion says
.sWith regard to any supposed acts OF
dedication occurring after the last ripar-
ian grant 1t is sufficient to say. if it does
not already appear that there was none
from which any intention to dedicate can
be inferred On the contrary as soon as
the compiainants obtained title, which
1881 they commenced to lay their tracks
and devote the land in question to rail
road purposes In 1882 the city attempt
ed to stop their work OF track laying and
to remove their tracks, whereupon the
complainants applied to this Court by bill
and obtained an injunction against the
acts Of defendants. To this suit the de-
PENDANTS appeared and answered the bill
and complainants in due course took tes-
timony before a master in support OF
their bill Grhe defendants did nothing and
the injunction still stands in full force.
"Again." continued the Vice Chan
ceilor. later on the city passed an or
dinance for the paving of Thirteenth
street east of Provost street, and thi:
ordinance was at once contested by tht
cornplainants by means of certiorari, and
testimony was taken by the prosecutors
~ support OF their reasons No testi
,nony was taken on the part Of Jerse,
city. That suit has not been pushed b,
Jersey City, and no further action wai
taken under the ordinance for paving
Playing prominent part in the sui
n question was Mr.. A. S. Jarvis, of thu
arm OF Jarvis & Henwood. tobacco deal
ers. to whom the Jersey Store Improve
nent Company gave q contract for
lease IN June, 1864 for a portion Of th'
street for ten years, from May, 1864
the fIrst FIVE years at $4,000, and thu
next fcr rent based on a new yalua
ffon. The lease authorized pier will
3he privilege Of a bulkhead betweel
= the pser and the one to the south Of tn
GENRE Of Thirteenth street extended
which was leased to them The leas'