Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-10-10
FINDS HAY ALLEY
BELONGS TO CITY
Pennsylvania Railroad Wins
Point in Ejectment Suit on
Mechanic Street.

Upon motion of City Attorney Her
bert Boggs. Judge Nelson Y. DUNCAN
today instructed the jury in the
ejectment suit of the city against the
Pennsylvania railroad to return
verdict in favor of the plaintiff in re-
gard to what is known as Hay alley,
strip 80 long by 10 feet wide,
which should run, it is claimed,
through the site of the offices of the
Adams Express Company at Alling
street to the Market street depot, cut
ting the latter building in two.
Judge DUNCAN also instructed that
the verdict in the dispute over the
tract at the foot of Mechanic street
be rendered in favor of the defend
ants, the railroad company.
James w. Voedenburgh, the rail-
road attorney, moved for the direc-
ton of the verdict in this case.
Another motion for direction of,
verdict in the third tract in dispute,
what is supposedly the westerly side
of New Jersey Railroad avenue, from
Market street to Hamilton street, but
which is now occupied by the rail-
road, was made by Mr. Boggs,
Counsel for the defendant company
agreed that there were no facts in
dispute and consented to have the
Judge decide the matter However,
after argument by both sides had
been completed, the court found that
some facts were in dispute, and SO
it was a case for the jury.
Agreed ms to Facts.
Mr. Boggs and Mr.. Vredenburgh
1a0I
the facts, and, therefore, thought
there was nothing left to decide.
The court decided to send the case
to the jury, and an early recess was
taken to give the full afternoon to
summing up. Both counsel told the
court before noon that they had no
idea what they could argue about
when everything was agreed. Alfred
c. Wall, one of the railroad COM
panys counsel, suggested tnat argu-
ment be invented.
The city lost the Mechanic street
tract through the terms of the con-
tract etnered into by the city and
the railroad in 1901 to elevate the
tracks through the city. This con-
tract provided that stone arches were
to be built over the streets crossing
the railroads right of way and stone
retaining walls along the embank-
ment, except at the streets The re-
tanning walls were built at Machanlc
street, and thus it was recognized as
a closed thoroughfare.
The railroad attorneys consented to
have Judge DUNCAN decide in the
matter of Hay alley and New Jersey
Railroad avenue after Mr.. Boggs had
made a motion to have the court
direct a verdict yesterday afternoon
for the plaintiff III these two tracts.
When counsel started argument on
the motion Judge DUNCAN told the
jury that questions of law, in Which
they had no interest, would be
brought up, and for that reason the
Jurors were excused for the rest OF
the afternoon.
Mr.. Boggs, in his argument, con-
tended that there was no controversy
as to the public dedication of Hay
alley. it having been given to the
city by Pruden Alling as thorough
fare.
Mr.. Vredenburghs argument was
that an alley was not a public street,
and therefore it could be closed by
fencing IT. in or by the railroad ac-
curing all surrounding property. he
quoted from dictionaries and encyclo-
pedias, which gave the word GALLEY
as derived from the French, meaning
a walk and not thoroughfars
Judge DUNCAN said he could not
hold Mr.. Vredenburgh's view of what
constituted an GALLEY" There is no
doubt that this strip. known as Hay
alley. was dedicated as a public thor
oughfare, and as such belonged to
the city, whether it was fenced in or
not" said the court.
Continuing he declared he would
direct verdict in favor of the city
in the Hay alley dispute.
No Question of Facts.
Mr.. Boggs today renewed his mo-
ton for direction of verdict in the.
Railroad avenue case, on the ground
that there was no question of TACT
involved, both parties, he said, being
agreed as to facts.
Mr.. Boggs reviewed the evidence
presented, going over the surveys and
maps that had been introduced by
both sides. TIE argued that the acc
ouiesence of the city in the use OF
the land by the railroad did not pre-
vent the city from, at a future time
demanding the reopening of the thor
oughfare.
Mr.. Vredenburgh summed up the
company's defense. He disputed the
interpretations put upon maps ana
SURVEYS by the city attorney. his
view differed, he said, as to what was
meant in the dedication of Railroad
avenue. Mr. Vredenburgh' s argument
was supplemented by an eloquent
49, k,erod n Wall his coll