The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-07-09
PLANK ROAD
CASE
Vice Chancellor Steven
son Announces His
Decision as to
Maintenance
and Cost.
HUDSON s-8;; ESSEX 5-S
Text of Opinion Shows an
Exhaustive Review Of
Suit Between the
Counties.
DECREE NOT SATISFACTORY
Many Think That This
oounty's Share Is Too
Large in Proportion of
Benefits Received.
DECREE NOT SATISFACTORY

. The first point to be ascertained is
whether there is any principle which has
been recognized in New Jersey governing
the apportionment of the expense of the
construction and maintenance of bridges
among the communities which particu-
larly enjoy the use of the bridge. IL
seems to be plain that the appertiehhleiit
OF this sort of expense between different
towns or different counties has hitherto
been made with reference to the relative
advantages which the two municipalities
derived from the improvement-wit
reference to the relative amount of use
by each party. OF course the principle
is not capable of exact application. 1t
may also be admitted that ordinarily
bridge connecting two municipalities is
probably of equal advantage to each. and
that equality in respect of ownership and
the burdens of ownership would be as
sumed to be just in the absence OF eyl-
dence to the contrary.
There are repeated instances in the
carly legislation of the State when the
care of bridges was placed upon the
towns. or was gradually being trans
ferred from the towns to the counties,
in which the Legislature, evidently
recognizing inequality of advantage and
use, apportioned the expense of con-
structing and maintaining q bridge be-
tween two municipalities uneqHally,
placing upon one party a much larger
share than was cast upon the other.
APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSE.
One of the most striking Illustrations
of the apportionment of expenses pertain
ing to bridges without regard to locality,
but according to use and benefit, is pre-
serted Dy the act of November %. 1I60
fAlliason 22S). This statute distributed
the expense Of maintaining three bridges
between two counties or parts OF coun-
ties, although the bridges appear to have
been wholly within one of these counties.
One of these bridges was situated in
, Waterford Township. in County of
Gloucester, but its construction was pro-
vided for largely at the expense of Bur-
lington county on account of the use
which the inhabitants of that county
made of the bridge in travelling to and
from Philadelphia.
After the burden of erecting and main
tanning bridges had been finally placed
upon the counties and the townships had
been relieved therefronl, and the coun-
ties had largely increased in popu-
lation and wealth, the instances of
apparent inequality of usc and ad-
vantage with which we are dealing
would naturally become extremely rare.
The parties who pay would in all crdi-
nary cases use the bridge equally and
derive cqual advantage from such use.
Il seems clear that the sitaation pre-
sented by this Newark PIankroad and
particularly its bridges, is similar to some
Of rae situations dealt with by the Legis-
lature during the colonial period Of the
State. and therefore calls for a similar
mode of treatment which is departure
from a sound general rule, and that this
situation is recognized in the statute
upon which this proceeding Is based.
LITTLE LOCAL USE OF ROAD. I
Leaving ont of view the very slight
local use Of this Flankroad from the
adjacent property which apparently IS
not likely to Increase very soon this
entire composite highway, including the
planlroad ana both the bridges, dis
charges substantially the same function
as if it were a continuous bridge from
the borders Of Newark to the borders OF
Jersey City, spannng the rivers and
Al old and We'll Tried Remedy.
arss vvi1,,s,out.s Soothing syrup for chr-