, 1873-08-07
adjourned. It WAS ovlt1ont TINT tho ontiro pro-
ccodinga woro controlled by local Dotnoo1atio
,1sRAIlROAD FREiGHTS.
Decision of tlae epennsylvnntns Supreme
Court in tho UaNo OF llOMgh Il E1crsls
VIZ. tho Northern Qcntrta1 lknllrOnUs

Court In tho UaNo OF llOMgh Il E1crsla
VIZ. tlao NOrthexn Contrn1 lknllronu.
From tae Phaburah Gazette, dug. q.
In tho oase Of Hongl. i Hursl vs.. lilo North
ern Central Railroad Company, D decision has
rocontly boon delivered in tho Bupromo Court
by Judge Morcur in Which tho question OF ay-
in Lancastor County agninnt tho defendant aH
loBaoo Of tho ahamokin Valley & Pottavillo
Railroad, mud In tho lower Court vordiot was
rendered for tho defendant, on tho ground that
charges nor ton por milo shall not oxcood,
co'itB, and that lcnco tho carrying companies
havo tho privilege Of charging moro than tho
above hgurea iii certaiD contingencies, provided
The lower court also decided TINT the nyorago
charges in tho caBo woro not moro than four
cottB per ton por milo for toll and tranaporta-
ton Of tho plaintiils' coal and merchandise,
from which opinion p{atntllfs demurroa aud
tory Of tho road ID giyon by Judge Morour
in his opinion, which also cites tho pro-
Visions Of tho di1foront acts relating to 1t. Tho
third section Of tho not Of April, 1910, proYldes
TINT the rates maximum Of the Company for
toll aud transportation ahnll not oxccod four
cents per ton per mile, md the second section Of
the supplement, approved April 2, 1860, intro
dncea 9n amondmont and reads, "anerago
thus shown" continues Judge h1oroar, !" that at
tho time Of tho passage Of tho several acts rolat-
ing to the sale Of tho road, prior to the aot Of
April q, 1860, tho maximum Charge Which tho
Company WIS authorized to make was four oents
per milo por ton. No greater Charge than four
oentB por ton for any milo could be imposed.
Beyond that sum the Company could not go.
The law nude that the barrior which could not
30 passed. Under that limitation and reBtrio-
the object Of tho net Of I'd Of April, 1850? Was
1t to give more or less favorable torma to
tho Company and to tho purchasorf Tho deeiro
to facilitate salo having boon enthusiastically
fkF%4 4.n ..51ja at%,-- Aha
bio presumption liz tbat 1t was to offer moro in
viting tormB to purchaser. It ia contondcd on
tho part Of tho plaintiff. that this Inv only gavo
power to mako average ohargoH below tho centa
power before its pasauge 30 wo will not giyo to
tho statute snoh construction aB will wholly
provont it's taking effect. Tho maximum charge
was the only Limitation imposed by tho previous
law: Below that sum tho Company, could hnvc
made such average charges as It ''deonod most
advisable" Tho uEdoubted intention Of tho
act, therefore, was to authorize tho Company by
d wise and tndiciouB discrimination to impose
aome charges higher than conts per milo but
thaf tho goncrd average should not exceed that
sum.
!. Tho roforeos have found that tho average
charge for toll md transportation upon this
road during the timo in question was only
8 7a4-1, 900 per milo por ton. Objection is made
to this conclusion for two rensonB: First, be-
cause tho refereos consider tho whole tonnage
carriea and not tho plaintiffs alone; and Sec
ondly, because Of the much higher rates charged
for 8 hort DISTANCES than over tho whole road.
Wc do not think either Of theBo obtections iB
sound. Thcre is nothing in tho act requiring
that this adjustment should bo so made as to
bear equally upon cnch individual.
Tho adjustment ia to be made between tho
whole road and the ontro public who use it.
Full eroct is therefore given to tho spirit and in
tont of the statute, rs vol as to itH letter, by
h;xlng different chargea per milo for different
roads. Nor il there anything unjust III disorinl-
mating in favor Of longer distances. Tho ref
orocs havo found it is usual for railroad COM
nnnies to charge higher rates for transporting
that tho number of mon employed, tic time con-
sumed, md tho Incidental exponaes incurred nro
proportionately greater. Strong roaaons e1ist
n H. this caHo tor tho application Of that rule:
miles only Of the dofondant'a road, while tic
motive power Of the Company had to be moved
up hoavy grade to roach tlat portion Of the
road. The Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to Oh
in determining tho gross average charges
received by tho defondants.. Io there
foro, agroo with tho finding, that when
the rates per ton por milo nre not
may be carried. average charges for toll and
transportation" aro understood to moan, md do
moan, charges made at q mean ratio Obtained by
dividing the entire receipta for toll and trans
portaIl0n Dy the WnoIe quantity OF tonnage cur
riod reduced to common standard of tons
moved one milo. It is true this must bo applied
to some giyon tmo, but the finding shows That
whether each yoar bo considered separately or
nugo Of the plaintiffs was passing over tho road,
the average charges Of the defendants did not
exceed cent? por ton per milo for tho whole
tonnage.
This view Of the caso shows the Judgment was
correctly entered in favor Of tho defendants. It
is, therefore, unnecessary to diBcuas tho othor
assignments Of error, Aa mono OF them can
change the result.
.Judrnlnnt nf1frmeii