New Britain herald., 1923-03-14

'An order apporuonins tho expense of bridge Is quasi judicial.
 Wheeler, J. concurring in result, but of opinion that the apportionmcnt is judicial and in no sense administra- tive. Whether given condition or restriction attempted to be Imposed by city on street railway Is or is not a lawful restriction is Il judicial question.
 Every owner of the fee of the highway over which railway com pany proposes to locate and every ad- joining owner is entitled as of right to the opportunity to show before the commissioners and the court on np- peal that method of location or con struction will cause him special dam age"
 Whether the commissioners have ! exercised their powers of regulation in way so as to do no greater in. jury to the owners of the fee in the ] highway or the adjoining owners on .the highway, than the performance Of their duties require or whether the construction approved of may do the appellant special injury are essential ly judicial questions.
 There may be little doubt then that the action of the public utilities commission in this case was at least partly judicial. so that the appellant is entitled to a review de novo in this court.
 l Public Nuisance Claimed
 Assuming that the action of the public utilities commission was ad- ministrative, by such action the pub lie utilities commission abused its ad- ministrative discretion, so that a judi cial review de novo should be given upon this ground. The evidence which was presented to the public utilities commission at the hearing by the city of New Britain tended to show that if this spur tract was laid on Chestnut street, public nuisance would be created: traffic hampered: the Instructions in the street in creased; property values depreciated and most of all the safety of thous- ands of school children attending school in that immediate vicinity would be seriously threatened. The children who attend this school are I immature; the conditions of the street is already highly dangerous, because of the large number of tracks on the street.
 "The evidence introduced by the Connecticut company at the hearing tended to show that the spur track would give extra storage facilities; that some of the passenger cars now stored in the White Oak district could be stored in the car barn on Che stnut street, while the snow blows, sand cars, etc., which are now stored in the car barn could be stored on the spur track. How can the public utili- ties commission decrease the property values, increase the Instructions in the street and traffic, create nui- sance and increase the hazard of forced to attend tn. Grammar school | when the only considerations balanced On the other side are nothing more than the convenience and private property of the Connecticut company?
 There are two commandments ex- | pressed in the form, Of muximums on which has been said to hang all the law and the governme nt. The first is: You must so use your own as not to injure anothers; and the second ,l commandment is like unto it: The safety of the public is the supreme Jaw.
 ., Considering the facts in the case ol In balance of the interests involved, oh he public utilities commission has Apparently given no heed to either of ,,t ,tiese commandments and so for these ,o, asons, the city of New Britain asks ,e ht the case be heard anew. First, 70 suming that the action of the com Ie- Ssion was legislative because the ar of New Britain claims that con- m. htion of its property will result ho 4 due process of law violated. Sec
 because the action of the public
 utes commission was at least in
 pajudicial or quasi judicial, so that ms orbpeal an independent hearing 7ill mQbe accorded and Third, because he thoublic utilities commission have is by ling that spur track may be ew laldt the evidence presented in this vo. casebused it's discretion"