The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1905-09-27
PASSAIC RIVER
SUIT IN COURT
Argument Heard Yesterday
in Newark Before Vica
Chancellor Stevens.
R. v. LINDABURY's PLEA
PATERSON HE SAYS HAS Il
RIGHT TO USE THE RIVER res
SEWAGE PURPosEs-coURs
RESERVES DECISION.

Paterson's attempt to have the city ox
Newark, the Dundee Water Power and
Land Company and the East Jersey Wa
ter Company made joint defendants wig
that city in the suit brought by Henre
II. Doremus and other riparian propertJ
owners for damages to their property bss
cause of the discharge of Patersen's Sew
age into the Passaic River was argued
Yesterday before vice-CAancellor Ste
yens. in Newark.
The object of fling the cross bill wa
to ascertain to what extent the Dundes
Water Power and Land Company, this
East Jersey Water Company and the city
of Newark. respectively. may be held ta
be Jointly liable with the city of Paters
son, by reason of the existence of th4
Dundee dam and the diversion of water
from the river above Paterson, to whieh
end the bill asked that the corporations
AdHleu ne Adue PARTIES ueAeASEaut 10 tIe
suit and that the original suitsbe stayed
until the issues raised in the cross bill
shall have been adiudicated.
r. V. Lindabury, who appeared for tha
complainants, argued that the matters
contained in the cross bill werelnot gers
name. and that they should not be per-
mitted to obstruet the progress of tha
suit
'sThe new phase interiected by the
cross bill,' said Mr. Lindabury, would
probably delay the trial of the main
cause for. three or four years more, and
there is not a defensive allegation in it,"
Mr.. Lindabury went on to argue that
the position taken by the defense is that
because others contribute to the injury
we shouldn't be compelled to pay for the
injury we are doing, and no redress
should be accepted unless others who
are contributing to the injury shall first
have such damages as they may be re-
sponsible for assessed against them.''
Mr. Hilton contended that the city Of
Paterson had the right to discharge its
sewage into the Passaie River and to
pellute it to such extent as might be
done without injury if the river had itz
full and unobstructed flow.
THE discharge of our sewage into the
iriver is lawful and authorized by the
Legislature" Mr.. Hilton went on TO says
s'but we are liable for any damage which
might result from such discharge. But
the other corporations named in the cross
bill are responsible in rart for the pres
ent condition of things and we ask thsA
they may be SO held and each have So
much of the damages apportioned to them
as it may be held to be liable for"
Mr.. Lindabury contended that the
rights of Paterson, both natural as we'd
as statutory, which latter Mr.. Hilton IN
his presentation Of the case had in
voked, were to use the river for sewer
purposes only so long as it could be done
without detriment to the other riparfar
| owners. Running streams, Mr.. Lfndabury
contended, are primarily to be used fos
purposes of supplying water, and noe
for the discharge of sewage. Any use
of them to any extent for the latter pur-
pose, in the nature of things, could be
| temporary use only, and for so long as
can be done without injury TO public
or private interests. When that can no
longer be done. either because the vol-
ume of sewage has become TOO great
or the supply of water has been reduced
by reason of furnishing water supplies
to communities, the right to use the
stream as a sewer ceases.
The count took the papers and reserw
ed decision.
l.