The San Francisco call., 1910-09-13

The municipal Geary street railroad ]
was given a clear right of way yester-
day over the major portion of its in
tended route. Judge Van Fleet brushed
aside the technical legal obstacles that
the United Railroads had sought to in
terpose He held that the city might
proceed at once with the construction
Of the line from Geary and Market
streets to the park and out Point Lobos
avenue as far as Thirty-thi avenue
He ruled that for the present there
should be no work in Market street nor
on the seven blocks In Point Lobos
avenue from Thirty-third to Fortieth
avenues.
The decision will enable the city au-
thorities to build Immediately without
interference the nucleus of the system,
with terminals at Geary and Market
and at Tenth avenue and Fulton
street The Issue in regard TO the Mar
ket street division and the seven blocks
In Point Lobos avenue will remain in
statu quo, pending an appeal
TEMPORARY INJUNCTIoNs
The decree of the court was promul-
gated in the form of a temporary in
junction interdicting construction on
the two portions mentioned. but deny
ing a restraining order as to all other
parts.
City Attorney Percy V. Long was
greatly pleased with the ruling. He
believes that the municipality will be
able to prove its right to construct the
portions still in dispute when this
feature of the case comes up for final
determination.
The United Railroads had applied to
Judge Van Fleet for an injunction to
prevent the construction of any portion
OF the road. It based its petition on
three main points: First. that it had
rights to Market street from Kearnv
and Geary TO the ferry that barred the
CITY; second, that it had sole right to
the use of the seven blocks in Point
Lobos avenue from Thirty-thfrd TO
Fortieth under the Old Sutro franchise
and third, that. it had prior claims in
Geary street from kearny to Taylor by
reason of old franchises.
WOULD BAR CITY
The United Railroads urged that the
state statute prohibiting two companies
from operating more than five consecu-
i've BLOCKS on the same street barred
the municipal road.
Judge Van Fleet decided that the
claims OF the United Railroads did not
arfect the whole Geary street project
but only those sections where a con-
met or interest appeared. He was In
cHned to the view that the contantions
Of the United Railroads as 10 Marlrat
street and Point Lobos avenue were NOT
without some merit. He solved the
problem by authorizing the city to in
augurate construction on all save the
uAsputeo points and suggested an early
appeal on the issues still in question.
Inc case was presented on behalf of
the city by Assistant City Attorneys
Il InOmaG q IL.
For the United Railroads Joseph n
hedding and William NJ. Abbott ap
peared.
ARGU MENTS BOOMERANG
The proceedings took wide range
and included argument on a demurrer
introduced by the city. This was over
ruled and the attorneys then addressed
themselves to the main contention
Haven turned some of the arguments of
the United Railroads back upon their
authors. If the United Railroads in
realty had the rights it claimed in
Geary street. he said, then the Sutro
franchise, with which it sought to block
the municipal line, was void
Haven introduced affidavits of Mayor
Mccarthy and Clerk Hagerty of the
board OF supervisors to show that there
was no present intention of building
down Market street nor upon tho dis
For the United Railroads Abbott repIied
that mere statement of a city official
was insufficient to be regarded as bind
ing.
The ruling on the Point Lobos section
OF the line will in no way embarrass
the city as il has been determined to
change the route at Point Lobos and
Thirty-third avenue to one of the
streets nearer the park. Only the Mar
ket street section remains to be cleared.
LINE TO PARK
The route, as now assured, will give
the city line to the park, which will
accommodate large and growing traf-
he 1t will prove especially advan-
tageous as means of reaching the ex-
position grounds in 1915.
The opinion of Judge Van Fleet as
delivered orally from the bench. fol-
lows:
] am of the poinion that This
suit should be carried to as irnme-
date a determination as possible
As ] understood the complaint II
does not deny the right of the CITY
to build in any part of the route
where it does not interfere with
complsinant's property The cjtv
may go ahead and build the road
a s 1T will interfere with comDlain-
ants rights.
/ think under the circumstances,