Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1921-04-08

Chancellor grouped his conclusions
under three general headings. We
quote a few OF his most salient SEN
fences:
"Under no aspect of the case car
these compliments be entitled to a de
cree enjoining the removal of THE
ENTIRE BOARDWALK. The utmost
they could ask would be the removal
of those parts thereof that lie within
the lines of the cross streets and which
prevent access to their lots; but the
proofs do not show them TO be entitled
ever to injunction Of this limited
scope"
Mowitz and the intervening com
plainants alleged in their bill OF COM
plant that the boardwalk constituted
a nuisance and that it was an obstruc.
ton. Here is what Judge Buchanan
says on that point:
'tIn the first place, L doubt very
much hat the boardwalk is a nuisance.
1t would seem, at first impression, that
the city had the lawful right to con
struct aud maintain the same under its
power over the grades and paving OF
streets; and if lawfully constructed it
can not be a nuisance.
'In the second place the complain
ants have no standing to seek the en-
joining of this public nuisance (assum-
ing it to be unlawful and and therefore
a nuisance. Such doubt, at any rate,
exists, that under we'll settled rules,
equity shall refuse iDjunctive relief
until the legal question has been de-
termined at law
The Vice Chancellor has reference to
validity of the titles to lots in the
section or area east of Atlantic venue
The right of ownership has been ques-
toned. He then goes on to say: II
will ASSUME that the complainants
have due ownership and possession of
the respective lots they claim. L con-
clude, however, that they are not en-
titled to injunctive relief for several
reasons" These reasons the judge en-
umerates in detail, laying great stress
on the undisputed fact hat ''the COM
%plainants have acquiesced in the situa-
ton for a considerable time; and it
appears that the city desires to remove
this board walk as soon as provision
can be made for the building of another
in q different location. Under these
circumstances injunctive relief would
not be in order"
Chancellor Buchanan also called at
tention to the lack Of evidence or suffi-
cient proof that these compliments did
not have access to the lots claimed by
them. By this he meant that these
lots were not absolutely inaccessible
that the alleged owners could obtain
ingress and egress by walking under
meath the overhead walk; and everyone
here in Wildwood knows that even
teams are frequently seen on the beach.
Hence the boardwalk was not an i'm
passable barrier for either pedestrians
or vehicles.
AS a result of Chancellor Buchanan's
sweeping opinion in dismissing this
bill of complaint the citizens Of Wild
wood may now breathe more freely. 1t
means that no more Of our boardwalk
shall be torn up by a court order. 1t
will be remembered that the order
originally granted. in error, to the COM
plainants, contemplated the ripping up
of the boardwalk from Lincoln to
Crosse venue Happily, now, the
sudden and total destruction aimed at
can never be carried out. ALI has been
surreptitiousIy wrecked that a be
wrecked; and non of 1t I've would
a been torn up ID the manner it was
but for the wilful neglect of trusted
city commissioners in failing to provide
a defense for all of the people against
the unWarranted assault of Albert G.
ants.
The right of the city itself to remove
the boardwalk at its option, in a lawful
and ord erly manner-sfter due notice
OF intention SO TO do, and the passage
of an ordinance to this effect-had
never peer doubted or questioned in
any quarter.
AS to the question OF damages, that
may or may not have resulted, theVice
Chancellor remarked that that phase
of the complication sis a mere incident
of the case" In other words, hat was
q matter not to be considered in this
connection, and had nothing to do
with the court in arriving at the con-