Wilmington daily commercial., 1873-05-05
The Iserks Ceuaty II. u.

ARGUMENT UPON THE APPLICATION FOR AN IN
JUNCTION TO PREVENT TRAoK-LAnNa.
Argument upon the application Of the Phila.
& Reading r. r. Co., to restrain the Berks Co.
Il. h. from laying its tracks through Front and
Canal streets, in the city of Reading, was made
in the courts of that county, on Friday
James e. Gowen, Esq, and Hon. H. Van Reed
appeared for the Phllade phia and Reading II.
II. Company, and Wayne MacVeagh and George
n. Baer, Esqs., for the Berks County Railroad
Company
James E. Gowen, Esq, opened the argument
for the plaintiffs by the presentation OF aifida-
Wits which set forth the prior occupation by
the West X. II. II. Company of Front aud CANAL
streets the expenditure of a large sum OF money
for the construction of the said railroad and si-
dDgs and the great injury which would result
to the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Com
pany by another railroad being permitted to lay
tracks in the same streets already occupied
which would Cross the road and sidiDgs at grade
interfering with the business, and OBJ
structing the continuity of the West Reading
Railroad.
Geo. F. Baer Esq. put in the answer of the
defendants in which il was stated that they
were desiroussthat the Berks County Railroad
should be built, and that the sidings leading to
their establishments, VIII ich would be crossed
by the Berks County Railroad. had been paid for,
and were owned by the said atlantis
Mr. Gowen, resumlng said that while the sid
ings were paid for and owned by the property
hOluefb along tn6 route, Lu6 H. ". 70. uhu luI-
nlshed the material and constructed them; that
as matter Of law the property holders would
not have the right to occupy the streets with
their sidings; it was only 4 railroad that could
occupy. public highway, and that the moment
the railroad Co. would cut off the sidings and
abandon them, the sidings would become nui-
sance, and the persons maintaining them in the
streets could be indicted Reviewing the
history of the case, he defended the course
OF the Reading Railroad 90. in its opposition to
the Berks County Co., oontending that if it had
not done so it would have been reprehensible to
al great degree. The defendants had cut into
procipitous bank, endangering the structure OF
the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad. and rem
dering an accident Of more or less fTightful
character liable, to happen. 1t seemed to the
counsel wanton piece of aggression, and such
was the decision OF the Master, who decided that
the road could not .be built without danger re-
aulting the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
The cisim Of prior occupation and therefore, pre-
emption to the right OF way were claimed by MIR.
GOwen, but he expressed the readiness OF the
Heading Go. to make an amicable settlement
with the Berks County Railroad, by which 1t
coald obtain the use of the former Company's
tracks.
Hon. Wayne Macveagh appeared not only as
counsel but as one Of the original stockholders
IN the Berks County Il, Il. He referred to the
difficulties that had presented themselves to the
projectors OF the railroad, in the opposi-
ton raised from the older and more 81
gantic railroads. At Wilmington they had to
run the gauntlet Of the Boston capitalists of the
Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Rail-
road; at Ooatesville they had succeeded in dodg-
ing under the Pennsylvania Railroad aud now
at Reading they had run against the powerful
Heading Railroad Company. He also spoke OF
the history of the litigation, and severely con-
demned the decision of the Master in regard to
the "Narrows,' Then referring to MIR. Gowan .
argument, he said Ii the Reading Railroad had
acquired the right to a width Of 60 feet in Front
street, they possessed the same control over
Seventh street, and the property holders
along that street enjoyed the right OF exit
from their doors only at the pleasure or the
railroad, The Berks County Railroad in obtain
ing the right to locate their track on Front street
had only followed the route which the Philadel-
phia and Reading Railroad and their Chief En-
Sineer had indicated in the previous litigation,
but the adoption of which route they were en-
deavoring to prevent. The theory that the per-
SONS owning the sidinge along the West Reading
hailroad could not control them, and were IN
ulctable for nuisance by maintaining them, was
controyerted. The counsel based their right
upon the Act of Assembly which had been pass
ed by tho Legislature, and signed by the Gov
ernor, and which had control even over the
roadway Of q railrood, As much as over any pri'
Vate property, but as against all this, the Berki
Oounty Railroad, as final resort, would nave
me right under the general railroad law OF lo4'
10 appropriate to their use portion OF the prop
erty OF the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
company, providing proper compensation, al
provided by law, was made.
george f. Baer, Esq, concluded the argument
Ior the defendants, in which a thorough review
was made Of the different Acts of Assembly re
iating to the subject. James E. Gowen, Esq.
closed the argument by referring to the points
advanced by the counsel for the defendants, whel
the Court adjourned, reserving its decision.
|