Evening journal., 1905-11-06

Junction Is granted only so tar as TO re-
strain the railroad company respondent
and its agents from entering upon or taxi
ing the land described in the condemna-
tion proceedings which have been herein-
before referred to. Let the order be enter
ed accordingly"
THE BAYARD CASE.
In the case Of Mr. Bayard against
the Park Commissioners and the Peo-
pies Railway Company. Chancellor
Nicholson says:
Il would be useless for me to state
lat length the whole case presented by
the pleadings as it is essentially the
same as that presented in the suit Of
Samuel Bancroft. Jr.. against the same
defendants. except that the present
suit is concerned only with one Of the
tracts of land mentioned and described
I'm that cause and is brought by an
labutting landowner instead of grant
or
"rhe opinion which was filed on the
I2Sth Of August last past with the or
der denying the motion for a prelim-
Iinary injunction In the suit brought
lby Mr.. Bancroft set forth in detail all
the facts involved and the questions
raised in that cause. Samuel Ban
croft. Jr., VS.. William p. Bancroft. ct
al, 81 Atl., Pamphlet No. 16. page $50.
QUESTION AT ISSUE.
"The question to be considered in the
lease before me at the very outset was
vigorously argued by respondents
counsel and if his contention be correct
liz will be decisive of the pending mo-
ltion. The question to which ! refer
lis whether the complainant has any
lstanding in a court of equity as an
labutting landowner upon the allega-
ltion Of injury contained I'm his bill.
'He alleges, and it is not denied
| that he is the sole owner in fee Of
lot of land situated on the southerly
corner of Red Oak road and Greenhih
lavenue, which abuts upon the parcel
Of land which William p. Bancroft and
lw!fe did on the 2Sth of September
I1SS9, convey unto the Mayor and Coun-
lcn of the city Of Wilmington for the
sole use and behoof Of a public park
land that he the said complainant de-
rived his title thereto by fee simple
deed from the Woodlawn Company
dated May o. 1904. which company IN
turn derived its title from the said
William p. Bancroft after he had made
his conveyance to the municipality for
lpark purposes as set out above"
The complainants allegation of dam
lage that the installation and opera
ltion Of said railway upon said parcel Of
land would be an unsightly object in
the said park and in so far as the use
land beauty of the said park is destroy
led the rights and pleasures of your
orator as an abutting owner would he
linterfered with" is referred to, and the
denial of the railway company is noted.
Counsel for the railway declared that
l"it is not the province of a court OF
equity to protect pleasures"
WHERE INJUNCTIoNS END.
The Chancellor concludes:
"The Court of Chancery has never
fused the tremendous power Of the in-
junction process 10 protect artisti,
sensibilities. An extension of its powei
Into that domain would be most dau.
lgerous. It's mode Of exercise woul'
= vary with the kind and degree Of cult.
walton possessed by the individua
chancellor in matters Of taste, for i
is the subject of every day observation
? that there are many specimens OF land
scape gardening and architecture L
say nothing Of sights and sounds anc
lcdors which, while pleasing and agree
able to many men, are offensive in the
extreme TO others"
However unsightly and unpleasant al
this may be to the complainant, II does
hot constitute such an injury as could
be construed by this court to be The
special damages which must be proved
by him to entitle him to the relief foi
which he prays.
MOTION WAS DENIED.
IF Mr. Bayard. as abutting property
d owner, had been able to show that h
= would receive from the proposed loca.
; tion and operating of the trolley, suci
special damage as would give hin
J standing in this court, it would be ne.
Z cessary for me to make an eXhaustiv,
/ examination Of this larger and mos
d important question, but inasmuch a.
b 1.-The considerations which I have brief
& lly set forth above have brought me L
the conclusion that the complainant hal
failed to show that he has any STANDING
lin court. it becomes necessary, if no
, Improper for me 10 pass upon tn
lother contention, and l am tn srefor
constrained to decide that the motion
flor a preliminary injunction must b
denied for the reasons which l hav
indicated. Let the order be entered
= accordingly"
e Salisbury Ponder and Curtis are at
: ltorneys for johnson and Ward an
b lGray are solicitors for the respondent
The counsel in the Bayard case wer
Thomas T.. Bayard for the complainan
land William S. Hilles for the respond
Ins.Fc