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

The Columbia and Augusta Railroad.
In our issue of December 1S, ultimo, we
published the opinion of Judge Platt, of
date the 4th December, ultimo, on the pc
tition of the Columbia and Augusta Rail
road Company for the condemnation of a
way over certain lands of the South Carolina
Railroad Company. This opinion concluded
with the following order:
at IS, therefore, orde, ed and determined,
That the petition of the Columbia and Au-
gusta Railroad Company has been presented
in due form of law; and that respondents
have, In due form of law. put in their answer
thereto, in which answer it is alleged,
among other things, that the taking of their
lands and right of way, as prayed for, will
be hindrance to the use and enjoyment by
respondents of their own highway, within
the intent and meaning of the Act (No. 42)
aforesaid. And if such ground of objection
be made to appear, by clear and sufficient
evidence produced, as true and well taken,
then and in such case the prayer of the pc
tition must be denied, as provided in and
by section s of the Act aforesaid. But in
the absence of such proof, the order prayed
for will be granted.
"And ii is further ordered, That the hear
ing of the case, fcr the purposes above ex-
pressed, be continued before me at Cham
bers. in Aiken, on Thursday, the 10th day
OF December, instant"
We are now furnished with the further
opinion of Judge Platt, with his order for
the jury, and with the jury's inquisition and
verdict. These we publish below, as part
of the history of this interesting and inn
portant case We understand that the South
Carolina Railroad Company have given no.
tice of appeal to the Circuit Court of Edge
field, which will sit in February next; and
will then move to set aside the verdict as
irregular illegal and void"
Er pdrte the Columbia and Augusta Rail
road Company. In ne, Petition for Jury
to assess compensation over lands and
right of way of the South Carolina Rail
road Company.
In continuation of my decision and opin-
ion of 4th December last:)
The counsel did not assemble on Thurs
day, the 10th, in pursuance of order of 4th
ult., but did appear on Friday, the 11th,
and the case was proceeded with Respon-
dents presented and fled their further and
additional answer to the petition, setting
forth and insisting that the Act aforesaid,
IN permitting one company to enter upon
and use the lands aud right of way of an
other company for the construction of its
road. did not apply to companies previously
chartered, but only to snch as should be
thereafter chartered; that the word "shall"
in the Sd line of the 1st section, indicated
the legislative intent to have its application
confined to companies to be chartered in
the futnre. could not acguiesce in this
narrow construction of the Act. and over
ruled the objection. Too great stress H
often laid upon merely verbal criticism, in
our endeavors to ascertain the legislative
intent. True it is, the word shall, is, gram
matlcally, verb in the future tense, and it's
precise moaning depends very much upon
the other verb with which it stands associ-
ated and the context. BY reading the entire
ACT, 1T becomes clearly manifest, that said
hrst section was intended to bp and is appli-
cable to all companies, whether chartered
previously or subsequently. In declaring
what corporations may avail themselves Of
the beneficial provisions of the Act, it saws:
WHeneoer any corporation shall be authorized
by as cAdrter 10 construct a raaoau, &C." In
my Judgment the true intent and meaning
OF the words above quoted are sufficiently
clear to Justify petitioners in their interpre-
tatlon OF them; but such meaning would
have been more happily and more accurately
expressed, If. instead thereof, they had
sald mus Whenever any corporation shall
pe aDle 10 show that it is authorized by it's
charter' 10 construct a lway, &C." Ifany
doubt remain in regard 70 It. sucb donht
Will be dissipated by the reading of section
3. which declares that, mo lands or right
OF way, which have heretofore or NAV here
after be procured for the construction or use
OF any highway, shall be considered exempt
from liability to condemnation. but the
right OF way over and across and along sucb
right OF way may be condemned for the