The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1872-11-15
BLOOMSBURY, PA. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER Ii, 1872.

| Ilko the present, tne main question IL
priority of occupation over q given
route, the first company actually upon
the ground, and, In good faith, making
the first survey of a centre line, and In
dicatiDg and marking it by plain and
proper stakes, or other sufficient monu.
ments, even though tho marks neces.
sary TO the actual construction of the
road itself be omitted, will prevail
against the second company subse-
quently seeking occupancy of the same
ground, fixing q centre line, grading
their road, and even eXpending consid-
cradle sums of money in its construc.
ton.
But to recur to the time and manner
of the plaintiffs location, as exhibited
by the aflidavits before us. We have
seen that the Wilkes Barre and Phila-
delphia Railroad Company was incor-
porated in April, 1868. Now the afii-
davit of ID. j. Waller, the President OF
that company, sets forth that the line
of their road was surveyed and determ-
ined in 1864, and that portions of the
road were about that time graded; that
the balance of it is already under con-
tract, and that the plaintiffs intend
| forthwith and in entire good faith to
complete and equip the same that he
has recently been over the route of the
road as located by Mr.. Coryell in 1864,
and has discovered some stakes set up
| by the defendants indicating the line
of their proposed road, and that in
many places these stakes exhibit inter-
Gerences with the line of the plaintiffs;
that the Susquehanna Coal Company
and Joseph Il. Stickney, defendants
also in the bill, have already laid OBJ
structions upon a portion of the plain.
tiffs' route, and that they threaten to
erect permanent works thereon also !;
and further, that the Danville, Halle
ton and Wilkes Barre Railroad Compa-
ny have advertised lettings for the
work to be done on their proposed
route, 50 interfering as stated with
the route of the plaintiffs.
Tho affidavit of Samuel G. Turnor
| states in substance, that in 1861 he was
the President of the Wilkes. Barre and
| Philadelphia Railroad Company, and
| that, acting in that capacity, and under
| instructions of the board of direction,
he employed Martin Coryell, cOmpe-
| tent civil engineer, to survey and locate
route for the plaintiffs railroad !;
that in pursuance OF that employment,
Mr.. Coryell surveyed, marked, staked
| ot5 aud located route, commencing at
| the Court House, on the Public Square
| in this city, and running thence down
| along the Easterly bank of the Susque.
| hanna, above high water mark, across
| and beyond the mouth of the Little
Wapwallopen Creek; that he was with
| the engineer from time to time, all
along the line, experimenting and di-
recting the survey that profile and
| draft of the location thus made was
prepared by Mr.. Coryell, and submit.
! ted to the company; and that the same
was not only accepted and adopted by
the board of direction, but that immed-
lately afterwards, and during the fol-
lowing year, the grading of portions Of
| the road was commenced, and a large
SUN of money expended thereon.
| The affidavit of Martin Coryell, be-
sides being corroborative of that of Mr..
Turner, is more specific as to the matter
of actual location Referring to theline
run across the territory in controversy,
| he says, that the survey was commence
ed on the 9th day of May, 1864, and that
| in July of the same year he made a re-
port Of the location to the company, ac
| cOmpanied by estimates of the cost of
the road, a map of the proposed line,
| together with the field notes and such
other datea as would afford full under
| standing of the matters connected with
the construction and completion of the
road itself. lie further says, that the To-
cation was final, and IS such, was ac.
cepted by the company; and with re-
gard to its character or the manner in
| which the location had been made, he
| adds, that "it was marked by stakes
regularly numbered" and that "num-
erouS and proper monuments" were set
| up, making the entire line so definite
that "an intelligent contractor would
have had no difficulty in constructing
the road on that line" He says in con-
| clusion, that he has recently been over
| the line of the plaintiffS' road thus
| formerly located by him and his assis-
tants, and that he discovered that the
| Susquehanna Coal Company and Joseph
| Il. Stickney have commenced some
| work upon the same location, which is
heavy in its character, and which will
amount TO permanent obstruction OF
the plaintiffs line if carried to compile
ton.
The aflidavits of Thomas p. Btodgett
and George Pfouts, the assistants who
accompanied Mr.. Coryel in 1861, fully
cOrrobOrate all that the latter says in
relation to the distinctness and COM
pleteness for The location then made.
And further, the affidavit of John
| hCNelSll, 81, lOr many years q civil
engineer by profession, states that nc
longer ago than February last, he was
employed by the North and West
Branch Railroad Company to locate g
line for that corporation over portions
of the very ground in CO ltroversy here;
and that in performing his duties, he
saw at several named points, marks oil
the survey and location made by Mr.
Coryell in 1864. Again, in March last
Mr.. McNeish says the defendants
practically all thosenamed in the bill
commenced to make and erect obstruc
tions upon the lOcstion of 1864 at poin
near the Nanticoke Dam, which, if con
tinued, will prevent the plaintiffs from
further constructing their road at all.
The atiidavit OF Richard G. Hughes
q also civil engineer by profession, an,
a employed in conjunction with Mr.. Nc
| Neish, by the North and West Branc
Rail lroad Company for the purpose al
. ready indicated, is of the same geners
import, both as to the evidence eXistin
: OF the location of 1864, and of the OF
| SlrErtiOnS and lntprfprpnnpS iptarnnaa