Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-10-28
AT LAST
Al LASI
The Jury IN THE RAILROAD CASE
PrOnounces in Favor Of the p, w. 4 Ny.
Co.-Resume Of the Testimony
Yesterday, the Arguments,
ard Iudge's Charge.

morning, Mr.. Lamb, the senior counsel
for the Baltimore and Ohio, road took
the stand, and testified in regard to the
admission which Mayor Sweeney testi-
fled Mr.. Lamb had made to him to the
effect that a rtain piece OF land un-
doubtedly belonged to the city. Mr..
Lamb denied that ne had made such a
statement. He could not swear posi-
tively with directness that he did not
make the admission, but he was certain
that he never did because ne never
could have done so.
The counsel for the plaintiff showed
the witness notice Of petition Tor con-
demnation OF the piece of land IN ques-
ton served by the attornies OF the b. x
q. road i'm August upon the city. Wit
ness did not recollect noticing the TACT
that the paper referred 10 the land IN
question at the time il was prepared.
Ii might happen that his company
should own the right OF way over the
piece OF land, and desire 10 secure the
lee simple. Or they may have merely
desired to secure the title TO the river
front and It's wharfage privileges, as
this was cOnsidereda an important acquls-
itiOn by the company. The question was
asked by Mr.. Hubbard when Mr.. Lamb
hal discovered the importance Of this
acquisition, and the reply was that he
had learned it in conversation with the
officials OF the road since the commence
ment of the present troubles.
The witness also testified TO the pur-
pose OF constructing the trestle, saying
that one thing in view when II was
built was that they deemed the ground
of very great importance, and did not
intend To allow it to be taken away If
they coutd help it.
Question, by Mr.. Hubbard: WAS
not this great importance simply be-
cause the land lay on the proposed line
of the extension OF the p, w. * ny.
road
Answer: IL do not think it was
Mr. FLOYD, supervisor OF track be-
tween this city and Cameron, who tes-
tifad previously TO Mr.. Lamb, touched
only upon the construction OF the
treStle. his understanding OF the reasons
for building il, and its praCticabIhty n
railroad structure iOr actual use.
CITY SURVEYOR PETERSON
testified in regard to the kind OF a curve
il would be possible 10 construct within
the b. x U. Co.'S land if the line OF
Twentieth street, as run by Mr.. Boiling
was correct this line being the one
fifteen feet south OF Mr.. PeterSOn's bne.
He had found by measurment that a
curve with radius OF seventy teet might
be built. Over this il would be Practl-
cable 10 operate trains.
Cross examined by Mr.. Barr: In 1915
he constructed a sewer on Twenty
second street, and tunueled under the
old track on the land nearthe buathOuSe,
the southern parcel desired 10 be con-
demed. The sewer had been covered,
but the excavation was never tiled 10
the level of the road, and the ties were
hanging to the rails under the portion
OF the r. K %. track trayersed by the
sewer. The track had no cOmmunica-
ton with other tracks except over this
gap.
CAPT. DEvRIES
was sworn and took the stand. lie de-
MED ever having admitted 10 Mayor
Sweeney that it was the design otthe b.
90. Company 10 obstruct the proposed
line of extension of the r., W. x Ky.
track. The Mayor evidently desired 10
secure such an admission, but | made
none OF the kind.
Question By Mr.. Russell
"'What was the manner Of the Mayor
on the occasion OF this interview
"His manner was very friendly and
pleasant. but he appeared somewhat eN-
cited ~
Cross-examined by Mr. Hubbard:
"What did you say when the Mayor
remarked that il was the evident design
Of your company to Obstruct the pro-
posed extension?
Nothing. | am not in the habit OF
allowing myself to be forced into any
such position
"Would You not have denied the al
legation If YOU truthfully could?
"No; | would not. may have said
that people could draw their own infer
ences, but that was not interring for
anyone
"Were YOU not al that time perfectly
satisfied that the object Of your road
was 10 hinder and obstruct the P. W.
Ky, Coz
"Not solely; no"
"Not sglsly. But was it not your un-
derstandiug that the occupation OF that
land would prevent the carrying out OF
the plans of the 2. W. & Ky. Co, and
that il was for that reason that 1t was
occupied ~
Il can't say that it was"
"Can YOU saw that IL was not?
al don't know that | could. l con-
cede that the occupation OF our land
would stop their operations, but had
no distinct understanding that that was
the object or aim of the occupation
Mr.. Kevser had said in his testimony
on Saturday:
AS soon as heard that the T., w. &
XIV. was bringing its track across the
creek gave orders to take such steps as
would protect our interests. The order
was given after | had been advised by
Capt Devries OF the steps about 10 be
taken by the p, W. x Ky. Railroad
Company
The communication in which Capt.
Devries had conveyed TO Mr.. keyser the
information of the steps taken by the p,
W. * XIV. company was produced, and
the date Oiit iouut 10 be later than that
OF the commencement OF active steps TO
occupy luclI lAllA bN Tue d ~ " N'AAA-
pany.
>. VI. BECEER,
the p, W. & Nv. engineer, testified As
10 his instrumenialityi in the night work
atthe north bank OF the creek, and pro-
duced the dispatches between himself
and Mr.. BelleviI.e in reference thereto.
He consulted with no one but Mr.. Thaw,
one of the Vice. President OF the p, c.
4 st. l.. r. r., and director OF the F.,
w. 4 XIV. Co. Mr.. Russell attempted
10 show a connection between the Penn
sylvania X. r. Co. and the roads named.
This developed the iact,no doubt new to
most Of the public, that the "Pennsylva-
MIA r. r. Co. and the Pennsylvania
Co" are;twO distinct organizations. OF
the.latter Mr.. Thaw is also a N.ce-Presl-
dent.
THE AFTERNOON SESSION
WAS opened with continuation OF Mr..
Becker's testimony, the results being
given above.
The defense then rested.