The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1905-08-14
PLEA
In Her Reply to the Damage
Suit She Denies Response
bility for PASSAGES Con-
dition.

Paterson in the suit for big damages
brought by the property owners along
the lower river, filed his answer in the
court of chsncery to-day.
In the cross bill accompanying the an
swer the cities of Newark and Jersey
City and the water syndicate are made
party defendants. The validity of the,
title of Newark and Jersey City and of
the water syndicate to reservoirs is .ques-
toned.
1t was in December. 1901. that the
property owners along the river began
their suit against Paterson for damages.
Chiefly they represented manufacturing
concerns. BY fling demurrers The
counsel of Paterson have delayed the
case for three years and half. The
right of some of the complainants to sue
was attacked Some have been eliminr
ated, but these are left:-
Henry NJ. Doremus, Peter Alyea,
George G. Van Ripper. Edo Y. Cadmus,
Cornelius D. Cadmus. Richard Van
Ripper, Edo Van Ripper, Frederick H,
Gelderman, William P. Vreeland, Rich
ard II. Hoitsman, Albert A. Outwater,
Peter II. Doremus, Mary A. Van Saun,
Paulina Wehnert. Martha A. Phil ips,
Passaic Brick Company, Garrett Ter
hume. William A. Hopson, Peter P. Van
Bussom, a lunatic. by Peter ]. Kipp. his
guardian; Margaret J. Kipp, John H.
Merselis, Erwin Merselis and Seatto c..
Nash.
After making some minor pleas Mr..
| Hilton denies that the state of the river
is a great deal worse than it would have
been had the owners Of property merely
exercised their rights as riparian owners
to permit surface water and drainage to
flow into the stream.
He asserts that the city Of Paterson
pollutes the river to a very slight ex-
tent, the pollution being hereby from the
city hall.the police station aud other
public buildings.
Mr.. Hilton denies that Paterson is
| threatening to continue the pollution of
the river. He asserts, on the contrary,
| that Paterson has been endeavoring to
| devise means by which the pollution may
! cease altogether, and he points to the
fact that the Dundee Water. Power and
Land Company has been indicted for
holding back the water of the river, a
case which has not yet reached trial.
Paterson has been delayed and interfered
with in its purpose to cease the pollu-
ton by acts of the legislature. endeavor-
ing to take all powers in that particular
away from the city and vesting these
powers in a state board.
Mr.. Hilton, admits that the riparian
! owners might have some cause for com
plant, but the riparian ownership PER
/ tains only to the river as it originally ex-
listed, that is. before the construction of
the Dundee dam. Mr.. Hilton denies
that any of the property owners along
the river where the status Of the water
is affected by the Dundee dam have any
ground fer damages, for The land in
which the law gives them riparian
ownership is far out in Dundee lake.
In the twenty-seventh and succeeding
/ paragraphs Mr.. Hilton falls back on the
| rights which riparian owners have to
the use of the river. They have the
right to use the water and the law will
| not restrain them from surface drainage
and every natural use of the stream.
The next plea set up is that large
number of manufacturers have located
along the stream: in fact that maaufas
| turers who have greet deal Of refuse
to dispose of sought the banks of the
stream in order to have the eas;est pseN
sible way of getting ~ o. the rcfass
j BY no process Of rsasoning s!saald rater-
son be held responsible for such pollu-
ton, for Paterson did not invite it in any
way.
TIE statute Of limitations is also
pleaded, Mr. Hilton arguing that most
Of the seyers in Paterson were CON
structed over 20 years ago and conse-
quently cannot be made subject to the