Perth Amboy evening news., 1909-06-02

local authorities in connection with
the 'Hole-in-the- Wall" matter will
be to obtain from the court an order
compelling the Pennsylvania railroad
to carry out the provisions of the
decision Just made by Vice Chancel-
lor Stevenson. Failing to do this
the railroad company will be held in
contempt
1t is possible that the railroad may
take an appeal to the court of errors,
which would cause a further delay,
but 1t is believed that this could only
be temporary as the legal points in
volved were settled in the decision
handed down by the highest court in
the Metuchen case.
Vice Chancellor Stevenson, in his
opinion, said in part:
The steady change in the direc-
tion OF inconvenience and danger has
been caused by the increase OF travel
on the road and by the operation of
the railroad company In widening its
embankment and adding line after
line of parallel tracks.
1.-The evidence established beyond
all question that under the condi-
tions which now exist and which may
have been caused by the construction
of these parallel railway tracks in
recent times the highway now has in
sufficient head way for the convent
ent passage OF the higher kind Of
vehicles. The passage is so dark
that the borough of South Amboy
has assumed the burden Of lighting
the same with artificial light. In
times Of rain, large bodies Of water
and sand are carried into one of the
open ends Of the tunnel and render
for time the roadway impassable.
After the water has sunk into the
soil, the sand remains, obstructing
the passageway, and the public au-
thorities are put to the expense of
removing it.
The theory of the bill is that the
duty of changing these inconvenient
and dangerous conditions Is imposed
by law upon the defendant railway
corporation, and that the Court of
Chancery can compel the specific
performance of this duty.
The proofs show that prior to
the construction of the nrst track the
highway existed, leading from South
Amboy in a northerly direction to
the certain docks on the Raritan
river This road now leads to the
recently constructed bridge to Perth
Amboy Many buildings have been
erected on the northerly side of the
railway, where there were formerly
open fields, and the travel has conse-
uuently greatly increased. The true
conclusion is that this court has full
power to compel the defendants to
construct a good and sufficient pas
sage under their railroad for the
accommodation of travel on Ridge
way avenue:
First, because the railroad which
makes the obstruction was not COM
Structed before April 9, 1873, and
Second, because the making of
the passage way does not enlarge the
duty imposed upon the defendants
by the Camden & Amboy charter
The conclusions are:
Il. The walls must be separated
so as to leave thirty-two (32) feet
in the clear. In the absence of testi-
mony, it will be presumed that the
middle line of the street is the mid
die line between the walls. If this
is not the case, defendants may leave
one wall stand and remove the other
the required distance.
"The exact question before the
court is not how wide is Ridegway
avenue at this place of croBsing: the
presise question is how wide a pas
sage should the defendants be
Obliged to provide for use in connec-
tion with Ridgeway avenue.
"The point to be indicated dis
tinctly is that even If Ridgeway ave-
nue. was wider than thirty-two (32)
feet at the original place Of crossing
when the railroad was first built, or
even If 1t was widest In 1885, the
conclusion which l have reached is
!. that esaHssage thirty-two (S2) feet
wide is at present adequate as sub
stitute for the entire highway for use
on the part Of the public travel the
width of the highway in any point
may be. The Metuchen case here is
a guide, and the remarks OF Chief
Justice Gummere In relation to the
width of Wall Street in New York,
and Chestnut street In Philadelphia,
may well be referred to.
ut Is for the defendants to con-
slider whether or not it would be
wise and prudent while taking down
this immense structure and erecting
In it's place to make 1t somewhat
wider than thirty-two (32) feet,
which width. the court under present