New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-05-02
Court of Appeals Favors Prop
erty Owners in Test Suits
for Damages.
TROLLEY LINE A DETRlMENT
Award of $4,000 Expected To
Be Multiplied by Hundred
or More as Result of
Decisions.

starting IN the early 9gs tho prop
erty owners of that street have been
fighting the trolley lines up and down,
back and forth. from the local courts
70 the highest bench in the state. the
Court Of Appeals. back down again
and back I'D again. until finally on two
test cases before the latter tribunal a
decision came last week allowing DR..
Joseph r. Brown and Mrs. Caroline +.
Esech $500 each on damage suits
against the Brooklyn Rapid Transit
Company. based on the principle that
the trolley line which the company built
in Union street had been a detriment to
their property.
s few more than =. hundred Of their
neizhbors along that street have been
awaiting the decision in the Court Of
Appeals. and they now believe that
about S25A0N0 viii have to be paid over
- them from the Brooklyn Rapid Tran
sit Company treasury IS 4 result Of the
decisions in the Brown and RasCh cases
Truax & Watson. LAWYERS. Of No al
Broadway. carried through tho fight
against the trolley company on behalf
nj ur. Brown and Mrs Rasrh, from the
first Injunction granted by Justice Law
renee in the Supreme Court, in Brook
1rr. i'm 1901. to the final argument be-
fore the Court Of Appeals which pre-
coded tho successful decision announced
rn Saturday.
Tracks LAID Nine Years Ago.
II was on \ sunday IN the latter part
% Man 1901. that the tracks were actu-
all, laid in Union street. but before that
Tor almost ten years the property own
crs had been fighting the Brooklyn Rapid
Transit Company's franchise tight, i'm
their street before the city Council and
before various commissions and ref
.ronS
When Tho WORN began on that sunday
rn MAY. 1901 TWO alert property own
ers. It. s Ader and J. H Banks, OBJ
lzned miUuotionE restraining the troll
l.. company. which was then the Brook
IN ~ lights road from laying the tracks
.u front of their property, and for nearly
.hr-er -aars the tracks which We're
LASTLY laid that Sunday had two gaps
m .he stretch running from Eastern
rsiIroad company overcame the ohstruc-
ffor Of those injunctions finally, and on
Mao y 1906. began to run cars regu-
la-ly over Union street whose residents
had until then chung fondly to tho be-
1ef 1hat their extra wide street was
So bo q connecting link in Brooklyn's
boulevard system.
Tho Adec and Banks cases travelled
uI. through the courts to the Court Of
Appeals before that point WIS finally
settled when that court held that the
railroad could condemn property for
rack space.
In the mean time Ia" Brown and
Fasch cases had been started, asking
damages for the ,letriment 10 their prop
critics Al No. $50 and No. So Union
s-reot- respectively
A. the Brown and Easch cases went
.~-fn curt % court il came out that
Stew York Is the only state in the Union
',--c II trolley % horse car line had
l--a held =, be a burden upon the
rroucrtv owners. the precedent having
-.-au confirmed in Schenectady cas-
.r Tho early part OF 1902-
A Benefit TO the Street.
Edwin A. Watson. Of the TruaX &
Watson firm which handled the Brown
md Easch cases. cited the Schenectady
go 80 a. precedent when they got to the
.,a1lrt If Appeals Chief Judge Parker
-.rote q dissenting opinion in that case
II was against the proposition of allow
.fs damages TO property owners because
.t a trolley line in front of their prop
erls-. lie lold that such line was IN
reality q benefit to q street in that it
brought passengers l. and past their
property.
Union street. the plaintiffs argued, was
~ extra width street, made SO because
II WIS designed as the connecting link
IN the boulevard system between Eastern
Parkway and Fourth avenue. II was
shown also AZ one point OF dctriment
that the street Was on such a grade that
the frolley line raised clouds II dust
from he sand they found il Necessary
e. put on the tracks {" enable their
.ar= 20 climb the grade.
= Was charged also that the trolley
..,.a had obtained fraudulently signed
,5l.arerrz owners consents. but Justice
Maddox it. lha supreme Court in Brook
1..,. when that point came before him in
500 ,.e-i,3e3 that tie burden was on
rhc property owners q prove that the
,uIlsruls were NOT genuine
The point aa 10 whether the railroad
-p5il5 ronGemn The street property was
g,..;5c. ia Tan2 against the railroad bV