The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-11-27
Denies Petition for w rit
Which Would Halt
Big Sewer Plans.
NO INJUNCTION
POSSIBLE NOW
Mrs. chaffin and Riverview I'm.
provemcnt Company Fail to
Delay Construction OF New
City Sewer in Virginia
Avcnuc-Lower Court
Right.

Ending the last liopc of nearby prop
erty owners of preventing the construc-
tion Of the new city sewer on Virginia
Avenue, the Supreme Court OF APP
peals yesterday morning denied the
petition Of Mrs. Sarah II. Chafiin and
the Riyerview Improvement Company
for writ of Injunction against tao
city.
An Injunction had previously been
refused by Judge II, Garter Scott in
the Circuit Court OF Henrico county.
and the matter was carried to tho
court of last resort. No opinion was
filed by the court in connection with
the case, there being merely notation
of the refusal to grant the injunction.
No further proceedings in the mat
ter indicated can bs taken, but. of
course, in case OF actual damage to
property a suit for damages may be
brought and fought out in the courts.
The petition was presented by Willis
B. Smith. and was answered by City
Attorney Henry r. Pollard.
Pluns Changed
The petitio .crs set forth that when
the property IN the vicinity was an
mixed to the city several years ago
an agreement was entered into where
by the property of Mrs. S. NJ. Dooley.
whereon she and her husband. Major
j. III. Dooley, reside, should be exempt
from annexation, with the understand
ing that city sewer should be laid,
following the branch through the
Dooley property TO James River How
ever. the city now proposes to dig tho
sewer along Hampton Street, just west
OF that portion OF the city park known
as Shields Grove, crossing Colorado
-Avenue and running by curved ne
to Virginia Avenue, Following that
street to the southern line of tho
Riyeryiew property.
On application of the vcontractors,
the petitIcn continues. the Board of
Supervisors OF Henrico county per-
mitted the closing OF the, larger part
of Virginia Avenue and part of
Kansas Avenue during the progress of
the work, and allowed the construc-
tion of stables and shanties.
Object to Order.
Much TO the surprise of the petit
TONERS, they aver. the board had on
Juno Z. 1910. without notice to them,
allowed the city 10 c.iangs the grades,
construct sewer and sink deep shafts
in the streets. They claim that these
streets are not streets in reality. as
they have never been dedicated to
public uses. 1t was intended, 1t Is set
forth, that the dedication of half the
street by the Riverview Company was
TO be predicated on the giving of the
other half by the Dooleys, which has
not been accomplished Consequen tly,
the argument is, 1t is still private
property. No work, 1t is stated, has
ever been done on the street by the
county,
Damage will follow the sewer con-
structon, the petition declares. b..
reason Of blasting and Of draining un-
derground streams, which will deprive
the residents of water, for which they
are dependent on wells. sCondemna-
tion. the petitioners say, should be
first required of the city.
Wherefore, being remediless save in
a court of equity, they prayed that
they might file their bill: that the
city of Richmond might be made
party defendent and required to an
swer; that 1T be enjoined and re-
strained from the cons struction of
tunnel and from making openings;
that, a mandatory injunction might
Issue recurring 1t to repair any injury
done, and that the order of the Board
of Supervisors, which is described as
a fraud on tho petitioners, be set aside
and treated as ultra v,reS and void.