The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-28
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.
rHE BRoAD STREET RArLeoAp oAsr-prorar

I'm DAAS1hD oNhHhE hAlLROAD CAbE-DECTaTON.
supreme Court OF Psnnsy yIvRnia-Chief
,JIA 'ce Moode ara, and Justices thompson, Stron T.
Rpad and Agnew The defendants are a Iassen ger
railway corporation, but have no right 70 bmd a
railroad " IL transportation OF frolght thereon or
10 use sienp power thereon.
The Cont sitting at Aarrisburg has decided tho
quo Tarranto q Hse OF the Commonwealth VS. he
Central iassenoe Ra lway Company, tho opinion
bong deivered b, justice strodg Itwil be cen
elaborate that on mos Of the material points the
juaement Is against tho Company, excepting that
winch holes that they are Apassenger RAJ w"y cor
The Commonwealth demurroe to the defendants
@ scug d iorlh The incorporat oe @ suu VI a
These objections the Court IN its opin on oyerru es
nolohg Una. tney were more purely "eUuons "s, 70 70
of the company. The concluding horizon of the
opinion on this point was as folows;-@It 70 uows
taine0, and Judgment will be given ior The deten, =
ants at they are a body polite and corporate bv
pany of the City OF Philadelphia" !"
. lbe point next taken up is the defendanps plea to
tnS iouF 1 ne count o. the lniormat on, to witrhe
Tor the puIT Oses OF their railway without the con.
sent OF City Councils fist had, On this point the
Court say 1--we are of OPINION that the plea shows
no osufhcent authority to use portioas OF artificial
roads, to WIT graded and paved streets the city of
Phlade phia for purposes other than the purpose of
crossing the some, without fl obtaining the con.
sent OF the parties owning the same
The CITY OF Philadelphia we hold 10 oe such partv
within the meaning OF the Act of Assembly. judg-.
ment VIII therefore be given Tor the Commonwealth
Ihe demurrer 10 the sixth plea is sustained Re-
Yond doubt the defendants were incorporated as A
Passenger Railway Company and nothing more
NothinV any act of Assembly indicates an inteH
lOn 10 confer W on them general railroad privileges
ana distinction has been recognized between rail-
roads as q class, and passenger railways +" Tao act
OF 1858, iBcorporat ng the Philadelphia Plank Road
Company now by change of name and additional
legis atlon, the Con pany defendant and tne subse
qUent acis are here Iescinded The act OF 1853
enacted, that 1t should be used exclusively with
horse power, and for passenger travel.
III gave them power 10 convey pnsSengers' over
their improvements, and to purchase equipments tor
said railways, and it enacted that no freight or
burden trains or locomotives should be permit cd to
pass over the same" But nowhere has the prOhbi-
hon against freight or burden traps been taken off
Throughout all the acts from 1868 down to the last
the defendants are treated as a railway company TOR
the accommodation of passenger travel alone:
"lt Il o prohibition against ltusing locomotives has
Governor on the oh of April 1861 and that only
authorized the use OF s cam passenger cars Whether
the defendants entitled to the privileges of that
act we shall see hereafter. COncedng for the pre-.
run freight or burden trains, to transport any
thing but passengers. 1t does not change the pur.
poses of their creation, and convert them into
"At most the steam passenger cars which they may
use must be such can be used upon what are
commonly understood to be passenger rail ways.
1hee Is still no authority 10 construct railroad
IL follows that with powers TO ouild passen-
ger railway only, THEY must use q rail appropriate
to such structures. 1t is notorious that rail suta-
bic Tor the transport of freight, for the pas
sage of burden trans, IS a much creator public
inconvenience in street than Is railway
usually employed for passenger transportation on
street railways A power to subject the public to q
slight inconvenience cannot be used 10 cause greater
find nothing in tie acts OF Assembly referred to
in this plea which gives to the defendant the right
to construct a railroad suitable tor burden and
fleight trains drawn by locomotives, to lay down
rails suited ior such structures or to lay down any
ran except such as is suited to- what Is commonly
know as passenger ral way"
The opinion then proceeds to notice the claims of
the defendants to use steam passenger and de-
cides again st it, Fina y, judgment is entered as
follows:-
demurrers to the pleas to the first, second third and
fifth counts OF the information and judgment Tor
the Commonwealth on the demurrers to the p cas- to
counts, ana Judgment OF custer accordingly"
judgments were also entered in the following
samborn VS. Patchen Error TO Common Pleas of
Glearfled county; Opinion by Woodward, G. j.
Williams vs. Nei. Certificate fiom Nisi Prius.
Nef's appeal from decree OF Orphans Court of
PhlladelphIa. Judgment affirmed and decree at
frmed at the cost OF appellant. Woodward, c. j.,
disse
Gauelt & Martin VS.. l.. & A. Wilcox Error TO
Common Pleas of Elk county. Judgment affirmed.
Court of oyer and TermIner and Omar.
ter Sess1ODs-JudRes Pierce and Ludlow,-rhe
first thing before the court was an application
questlng the Court to nix day for the hearing of
the arguments Tor new trial IN the of Maurice
Abrams convicted OF q charge of murder ,in the
first degree at the last oyer and Ierminer term Of
this Court.
There are papers of the greatest Importance to
the d, fendant in the hands OF the captain OF Bril-
ranean. The captain was ordered to leave copy Of
these documents at the Custom House at St. johns,
New Brunswick, but this he 1aled to do. He was
also ordered TO leave copy with our British Con-
sul but in tins he also failed. The captain OF the
vessel il seems, Is dead and the whereabouts ofthe
vessel which contains these documents is un-
known.
The Court said that as these papers were of vital
importance to the defendant they had seriously
sidered the matter and had continued it thus far
but that they would not yet tx any DAY until the
Cn the part OF the Commonwealth there an
application made for the continuance of the case of
William Leary, on plea OF the absence of an import"
The defense stated that defendant has been in
prison for about two and half months and that he
has a wife and chi dren dependent upon him for
support and that he is, therefore anxious for the
trial of his cause
The Court continued the case until such time as
the presence of the Commemorative witnesses could
HE Commonwealth also applied for a continu-
ance of the case Of James Monnegan, upon plea
Of the absence OF the ply ysican whose absence
caused the continuance Of the case of VIII am LearY
There being no homcloe cases Leeuy ior t1al to:
II O'Clock and the Court OF Quarter Sessions heard
several cases of no more than ordinary Importance.
George w Ashton ana William Vincent pleaded
guilty to charge OF burglary, in entering the house
OF Mary Lltel, and OF the larceny OF goods to the
witness testified that he arrested these two wor.
thies on last Friday evening; that he found upon
their persons pawnbrokers' tickets BY which he
recovered goods beOn glng to Mrs. Litel to the value
of about twelve hundred dollars; goods belonging
10 a Mr. BlcGrath 10 the value of seven hundred
dollars. and goods belonging TO another LADY to the
value Of one hundred and twenty-five dollars. Mr..
McGralh's residence was at No. 1915 North Tenth
street. .
two weeks and when he returned he found all the
inner doors broken open, his bureau drawers thrown
around, were ransacked, ana canned fruits and pre-.
serves daubed all over the walls.
A similar, ii not worse scene, was presented in the
The buTalsrs state that they we've born and raised
in Philadelphia and that they are respectively aged