The morning journal-courier. (New Haven, Conn.) 1907-1913, 1908-03-11


critics could be taken, he thought, as
being similar.
Mr.. Rogers then did his best to show
the Judge that the amount asked for
the station building was too great. And
finally he took up the retaining wall
matter, which when it was sprung by
the road at the hearing last week caus-
ed such a big surprise to all concerned,
the demand being that it would cost
$40 600
The retaining wall will have to be
built, so the railroad says, from the
corner of James street and the new
Humphrey street extension for 800 feet
to point but few feet from the
southerly abutment of the bridge
which will carry the main line tracks
over the street at that point. Hum
phrey street will be seventeen feet be-
low the grade on an average and 1t
will come to a point eight feet from
the siding to the box factory where it
is nearest. The siding is built on a
curve.
Mr.. Rogers cited the case of Richard
Fellows In the 44th Conn. reports. Mr..
Fellows owned the land at the corner
of Whitney avenue and Humphrey
street in 1876. He sued the city for
damages, claiming that he had to
build retaining wall where the street
grade was made lower than the level
of his adjacent property and that he
had to fill in where the street grade
was higher than his adjacent proper
ty. The case went through the courts
and the final decision was that Mr..
Fellows could not receive damages.
Mr.. Rogers claimed that the present
case is similar in scope and that the
railroad could not hope to be paid
damages for any retaining wall 1t
might have to put in to maintain It's
way.
Mr.. Rogers was followed by Mr..
Day who finished the case for the
road. Mr. Day contended that the re-
tanning wall could have been prevent
ed had the city chosen to select a
crossing for Humphrey street further
to the east, which would have been an
easy matter. But, no, the city wanted
to have nice straight street and
that brought 1t too near the siding
tracks. 1t was in the city's power to
choose and the city should pay for its
choice IL it selected the more expen-
sive way. But that way leaves the
road suffering to the amount of $685.
900.
Mr.. Day said he could not see that
the Fellows case cited by Mr.. Rogers
could be made to apply to the present
case. The Fellows case, he said, had
to do with an existing street, which
was simply being graded. The pres
ent case has to do with an entirely
new street.
In turn he cited a number of cases
to uphold his side of the argument
One Of these was the case of the city
of Bridgeport vs. the New Haven
road in the seth of Connecticut. in
which, he said, 1t was conclusively
shown that city has not the right Ia
take anything which is being put to
public use already without providing
a suitable support for the remaining
property.
Mr.. Day laid great stress upon the
damages in the case of the retaining
wall He said that the other DAM
ages asked were trivial in comparison
by every principle of equity" he
said, land of justice the city must
pay to be fair with u.s. Mr.. Day said
he thought Mr.. Rogers estimate as tc
the valuation of the land on which
the station stands by making a COM
parison of the valuation per square
foot with a recent sale of adjacent
property at the site of the National
Folding Box and Paper company was
exceedingly unfair to the road. He
showed the great frontage that the
station lot had and argued its partic-
ualrly favorable situation for the pur-
pose 1t had been put to.
He said the tracks to the factory
and the lot beyond must be maintain
ed. They were getting more valuable