Evening journal., 1908-10-08
JENNY BUILDING
CASE DROPPED
Motion for Dismissal Of the
Sidewalk Lift" Suit Made
by MIR. SatteTthwaite
AN ARGUMENT
BY Mr.. HARTMAN

Attorney Robert G. IIarman, repre-.
sentinE Annie L. Maver and lean
JENNY. owners of the new Jenny Build.
ing. in the case that has been pending
ia CITY court REGARDING alleged viola
tions of a resolution Of the Street and
Sewer Department pertaining 10 build
ing regulations. submitted a brief in
court this morning before Judge Coch.
ran in which the argument was made
that the resolution was unreasonable
not uniform. ana conhicted with tile
citv charter in several instances. Be-
fore Mr. Harman concluded his argu-
ments. Assistant City Solicitor Sat.
terthwaite motions1 tlIt the case be-
dismissed and that the court withhold
its decision upon the matter Mr.. Sat-
terthwaite said that he would not brins
up the case again under the resolu.
tion
This case is one that has been in
court several times. il was dimissed
once and again hrouSat Hp under q
new resolution. The whole contention
was over the construction OF a side
walk lift which the contractors had
built for the purpose Of getting merchs
andise into the basement Of the new
building. The Street and Sewer De.
partment contended that the lift was
a violation of the city ordinance. while
Mr.. Harman. as attorney for the own.
ers of the building. held that the con-
tractors had built the lift in conformity
with what was allowed by law anG
similar in design to tho lifts that are
to be seen in the sidewalks and used
by the majority of business houses in
the CITY.
Discriminating in chareter.
Although Mr. Satterthwaite had Pre-
pared a brief on the case. he did not
submit il IN the court When Mr
Harman asserted that the resolution
was discriminating in character. from
the fact that recently constructed
buildings had lifts and that no viola
tion Of an ordinance was alleged bv the
street and Sewer Department Judge
Cochran said that it appeared that way
to him. He asked Mr.. Satterthwaite
WHY it was the DUPONT and Ford build.
ings could have lifts in the sidewalk.
and said he would like to have the
matter explained to him when Mr. Sat-
terthwaite presented mis- arguments. As
Mr. Satterthwaite did not take mp his
side Of the case and as the court was
asked not to pass upon the case. the
questions Of judge Cochran were not
answered
Mr. Harman had got so far in his
brief whe-e he asserted that the resolu-
ton was void because the Street and
Sewer DEPARTMENT had no jurisdiction
over the matter of prohibiting certain
privileges allowed by statute in the
construction Of buildings. when the
motion was made by Mt Satterthwaitc
10 have the case dismissed. The con-
tention from the start Of Mr. Harman's
brief was that the resolution was voi1
because IT was not Uniform, because
it was unreasonable. and because IL
conhicted with the citv charter. He
said it was an arbitrary resolution for
the reason that it attempted 10 talks
away p-operv rights have light and
access 10 buildings.
The resolution IN question makes It.
a violation of a citv ordinance to build
steps. porches. approaches or 'othel
structures 70 a building. and it was
alleged that the sidewalk lift came
under the general head of approaches
Harman said. as term Of quality the
proceeding words, an approach then.
was also defined. according TO the reso.
luton. as a structure An approach
he said. must lead I'D "a n building.
The lift in question was not that. nor
was II a structure Mr. Harman then
defined an entrance TO j building. under
which head. he said. the sidewalk lift
might be designated a window. he
said. was an entrance also an inlet to
a building. and in the same way a
cellar doo~ could be termed an entrancs
or an inlet. and SO also might a lift or
elevator used 70 take things into the
cellar be termed an entrance or an IN
let
Promise Of No Fureher Trouble.
The court was satisfied with tie
definitions ana the torrle that wa
worked up AZ the last hearing as IN
what constituted an approach seemed
70 be Strengthened out. Mr.. Harman
said that he was satisfied to have the
case dismissed under the conditions
named that the court make no decision
in the matte. and the assurance was
given bv Mr. Satte-thwaite that Mr.
Hsrman's clients would not be am
further botheced by charges Of violat-
ing a city ordinance with regards 70
this particular sise-walk lift. Mr.. sat.
tarthwaite asserted. however. that tho
resolution wouli he enforced from nov
~ against owners of nav buildings
that may be erected -