Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-01-18
CITY AND WATER
COMP MES UNITE
TO FIGHT BIG SUITS
Seek Writ Restraining Prosecu.
ti0n of Cases for $4,000
Damages.
RIGHTS IN PE0UANNOCk
SHED ARE AT ISSUE
Land Firm Claims Diversion Has
Decreased Value of Its
Property.

L
what will no doubt develop into n
bitterly-fought case was begun TODAY
When William II. Corbin and Michael
Dunn on behalf of the East JERSEY
Water Company and the Jersey CITY
Water Company, and Herbert Boggs
on behalf of the city of Newark, ap-
peared before Vice-Chancellor Stevens
on application for an injunction re-
straining the prosecution of three law
suits for $4,000 each by the Chestnut
Hill Land Company. of Paterson,
against the water companies named.
and this city. The land company al
| leges that by the diversion by Newark
and the water companies of the waters
in the Pequannock watershed its land,
situated twenty-five miles below, has
suffered in marketable value to the ex-
tent named.
On January the counsel named APP
peared before Vice Chancellor Stevens
at his home in Morristown and OBJ
tanned Il preliminary injunction re-
straining the suits set for trial in the
Passaic County circuit on the tenth.
Today was set down for final argu-
ment on the plea for q permanent in
junction
The ground set up by the three de-
PENDANTS in support of their application
is that unless the matter is settled in
the equity court, 1t would involve the
defense of multiplicity of suits in
the law courts. 1t Is further alleged
that there is no adequate remedy at
law, and that the proper place for the
| threshing out of the land company's
claim to damages is the Chancery
Court.
1t Is said that J. Edwardes Barbour,
member OF Paterson's finance COM
mission, Is the vice. president and sole
owner of all the stock of the Chest
nut Hill Land Company, which OBJ
tained title TO the property in question
! in 1889.
The property is situated near the
northern boundary ffSA or fc;fstB.de
Park, the beatty spot OF Paterson. and
close to where practically all OF its
finest residences are situated. Mr..
Barbour himself has just completed u
palatial home with extensive surrounds
ing gardens on the choicest part of
the land in question. and about the
only thing that mars the beauty Of tho
surroundings is the condition of the
fassaic river flowing close by.
Mr.. Griegs Outlines Case.
After a consultation and preliminary
talk between counsel it was agreed that
former United States Attorney General
John w. Griggs, who is identified with
If, TIn, lat T..
the prosecution of the lawsuits and
who also opposes the order applied for
today, should explain the previous pro-
ceedings which led up to the restraint
suit. Mr.. Griggs read an affidavit of
Mr. Harding stating that theqtime limit
for Newark to plead in the lawsuits
expired October l. 1909, and that shortly
thereafter an interlocutory decree was
entered against this city. On Decern-
her j Mr.. Boggs was asked over the
telephone concerning Newarlss inten-
tion in the matter. Mr.. Boggs appeared
to be surprised and said he did not
know of the suits and explained that
the city's law department had been so
busy on other matters that the land
company's action had been overlooked
Mr.. Harding Informed him that iudg-
nent by default had been entered and
writ of inquiry issued Mr.. Boggs
asked that the matter be reopened
This permission was given on condi-
tion that the suits be tried at the en-
suing term. Thereupon the trial date
was set down as January TO- a further
request for more time was asked for
and refused The next move was the
granting Of the preliminary restraining
order
The affidavit of Mr.. Harding also
stated an offer had been made whereby
Mr. Barbour was to consent to di-
version of 100,000,000 gallons for a GER
tain sum. but that the matter had been
dropped.
In opening his argument Mr.. Corbin
ridiculed the professed claim of the
land company that had it not been for
the diversion complained of, twenty
five miles above the property in ques-
ton, the water would have been clear
and wholesome.
Mr.. Boggs dwelt upon the claim of
the land company that the diversion
of the waters lessened the usual flow
of the stream, so that the polluted
matter cast into the stream by resi-
dents of Paterson was unable to pass
Off
"All that Newark is liable for is for
its share of the loss of the land COM
pany's riparian rights. caused by its
diversion, and not for the damage
caused by pollution even though the
diversion makes it LESS liable to flow
OFF, he said.
"Tbe three suits are for the one in
jury The proper course would be to
bring one action against the three de-
PENDANTS and have the damage pro-
portioned Newsrks share of this
loss would be slight. as the evidence
introduced showed its diversion is
small"