The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1869-02-27

Judge lard-Were these facts brought to the attention
Judge Boozer the motion to dissolve? go
MrConnerYes sir; and answered that they We're
facts with which he had nothing to do lie was simply to dis
the Injunction and leave all other questions be decr
mined by the Court Edgefed. The was like wo
thewp could get it in that shape in which the
question of right would be entertained.
need not say that Aiken argued the question with
good deal of feeling which his Judge Patt understood
appreciated when he said ne realized r the first time
of that earneness To his language and this
the Court will bear in mind was on the second had
brought my mind the conviction OF the possibility
their losing feet Of their right Of and especially
through their depot lot at Grantev without being
ry hndeed in their use enjoyment provided against in
"secon eight therefore felt it duty TO the dis
BY declaring petitioners the my mind
had to- grant order prayed for long rs
ansisted on fifty feet for their roadbed His Honor was
shocked the injustice proposed hence he promptly an
the threshold Of the discussion that unless that
claim were abandoned would refuse the order prayed for
such law had forbidden The Acto the
Legislature intended to grant such right OF OF to
Justify such an extensive ecroachment the vested rights
company that claimed and prayed for in
Upon that point there clearly expression OF
"Soon thereafter continues his Honor they the Columbia
tton appears reducing their claim from nifty feet to
ten feet only Grantoyle but through the entire route
Had the attempt been made under that order and opinion to
take than feet the would have been SO clearly
the power delegated to hem that their judgment
must necessarily have fallen because the could have
been determined by foot rule had Judge Pas order
been allowed to stand the shape which there would
have difficulty about it. becaqseit would have been too
plain doubt Therewoud have been no room Tor eonstrue
ton But when feet stricken and there was sub
sttuted sufficient width of ground for the construction OF
roadbe the change was material and our were
materially affected although it, doubtless appeared to the
Judge that it was distinction without difference He
could not be supposed be sensve acute on the subject
Judge ndss win @ Judge Bat had retained
his order would that order have been nugator2 Would
it not have been judicial bunder which he had right to
eliminate previous the finding of decree have always
my eliminate rather than render afnte and
Judgment which would convert legal proceeding
farce think that point scarcely worth discussion
i than of nv
to this directly Judge Pat in his order
had become convinced that at points it the claim
for fifty fee work such hdranee the law had for
secondly that according to
Act although it would tolerate and permit the usual width
"for their right of over lands generally through which
athey required pass the General Assembly never intended
give them such right Of way when they begged priv
aege laying their roadbd along and over the regular and
usual way of another company and that TOO or
! "miles." -
In other words ten The precise limit fixed
and it intended TO abandon that we claim that other por
tons the order should have been stricken out lbeng
fifty feet could not be taken question would
be taken And should have pressed his
make the order in such terms would indicate to the
what testimony to be aken and how TO determine the
precise amount of land to be condemned. W "a
Judge Wlard-To my mind the order perfectly ineligible
being on ten foot basis It simply meant to extend the
Mr. CopncrTbat would substitute an indefinite ior
mite limit Your Honor will conoede that the higher the
embannen the wider be the base There would then
be shifting lne according the grade was higher lower
and neither party could know exactly where the line which
divided them Dut rlgnG III INV
adudged that you it with foot rule and say
there terminates your ne but to determine the the
term "ufcent for roadbed would give you shifting base
with shifting rights and fixed limit of line at all
Judge WlardThe jury supposed tohave had the nec
essary profles.
i Mr. Conner-They did moi, have thing. -
Judge Ward-At any rate the question was purely one IN
arithmetic
Mr. Connc-Of course but it was necessary for the jury
by actual feet 1t has occurred at that very place
that the track been changed three four times and
one instance moved half mile Unless the limit be deter
mined therefore, accordance with this doctrine there may
be shifting line all the time.
But the direct question If there anything
cear plain and emphatic is the opinion OF udge Patt
that the Legislature intended to give the Columbia and
Augusta Railroad Company right of of fifty feet over
the land Of another company tor it would work such MN
drarce a the law had forbidden Yet the jury under the
license granted them which they derived by the alteration
Of the ten feet to Ga sufficient width for the
construction of tho roadbed have condemned sixty feet along
three and hreeurhs of mile of the road Even then when
limiting them to feet his Honor doubted whether the lin
tied allowed them would not operate as hndrance
He says his order "St had lingering doubt in regard
"to he hindrance question at two points, the one at Dead
"Fau' and the other at Graneyille depot lot
money expenditures for the repairs of such injuries but
call will be made good to them by the YER
of the jury required and ordered in and b the Act
The Chief Justce-I that Judge Patt in his opinions says
that before the injunction be removed they must show not
only that they have rendered the compensation but that they
have acquired the right"
Mr.. Conner-That is just the point make. When the
other side before Judge Booze they the right
been acquired by the payment of the compensation That
was the great argument But have heretofore stated there
is not single paper which you lay your finger In which
there is decision of this question of right Judge Plat says