The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-01-10

having petlIiOueTS rOau-Deu between their
track and the high ground beyound both.
and the track complained of being elevated
some feet above their own, the new road
Will catch all the wasG;HGs from that high
ground, and which must be disposed of by
that company, and thus the old company
be relieved of that expensive annoyance,
from which they have so long suffered.
All these nine witnesses admit that the old
company may be Inconvenience, and NAV
de subjected to some money outlay at
dead FALL" and that like Inconvenience
and vexation may be caused at Granitevile,
by the laying of this opposition road-bed
across their depot lot; but insist that no
himdronce will be thereby occasioned to the
legitimate use end enjoyment by respond
ents of their own road.
But after all, the apparently opposite
opinions thus expressed by the witnesses.
may be more seeming than real discor-
dances When, on the one side, respond
ents' witnesses say there will be 'thindrance
to the use and enjoyment of their highway"
they may not mean the highway itself, but
hlndrance to the use Of certain facilities in
cldent to 1t; hindrance to certain other uses
| for which the lands we're procured; or to
the construction of additional facilities
which they may perchance hereafter need;
or hindrances which only exist as npprehen-
sions of future hindrancc.
On the other hand, when petitioners wit
nesses say there will be no hindrance, they
may mean no hindrance to the highway
ltself-to the railroad, as distinguished from
the facilities or incidental privileges of the
franchise. They concur with the other
witnesses IN stating that in some of these
incidental matters, not only inconveniences
will be occasioned, but even hinlrances will
unavoidaby occur; but they deny that there
will be any hind,dnce TO The use and enjov-
n'en1 Of Me railroad, as a highway for travel
and traffic.
1t must be borne in mind that all the
foregoing testimony was given while the
petition (uDamended as now) claimed for
their road bed, and for their own exclusive
| use, a width OF 90 feet-all of it within re-
spondents' right of way-not only en- route
from Graniteville to Hamburg, but also the
like 50 feet across the depot lot at Granite
Vile.
Counsel now proceeded to argue the case:
and was not surprised at witnessing the
excited zeal and earnestness manifested by
respondents counsel in the advocacy and
defence of their clients rights, for had not
brought my own mind to the conviction of
the possibility of their losing 80 feet of
their right of way, and especially through
their depot lot, at Graniteville, without
being necessarily hindered in their use and
enjoyment, &c, rs provided againt in sec
aforesaid. L therefore felt it my duty to
interrupt the discussion, by declaring to
petitioners the determination nv mind had
come to, not to grant the order prayed for,
80 long as they insisted on SO feet for their
road-bed. First, 1 had become convinced
that ut some points, it must work such
hiadrdnce as the law had forbidden; and
secondly, that, according to my construc-
tion of the Act, although it would tolerate
and permit the usual width for their right
OF way over lands generally, through which
they required to pass, the General Assembly
never intended to give them such right of
way when they begged the privilege Of lay
ing their road-bed along and over the regu-
lar and usual right Of aOay of another COM
pany' and that too for miles. and also
through and over their very depot lot; that
In my Judgment the Act ~ in allowing
anoy interference at all with the right of eDay
OF another and older company, intended no.
thing more than to give the right of passage
over 1T, and to permit the taking of SO much
OF their right of way as might be needed for
the construction of their r0al-bed and
nothing more; that surely the Legislature
never intended to justify SO extensive an
encronchment upon the vested right of
another company, as that claimed and
prayed for in this petition.
| lntlmated to the counsel that if they
should express desire to amend their peti-
tion i'll that respect, would permit them
to do 80; but otherwise must decline grant
lug tho order prayed for
Soon thereafter they presented their
amended petition, ms it now appears, re-
ducing their claim from SO feet to merely
sufficient width for construction of their
road-bed, not only at Graniteville, but
throughout the entire route. Counsel then
proceeded with their discussion. warmly
and earnestly as before; insisting, on the
one side, that even now it would work the
hindrance complained Of; and on the other,
that all former grounds of complaint we're