The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1879-10-28
he WHEELING DAILY MTELGENCER TUESDAY MORNING

first question, is II necessary that the P.
w. & X. Railroad Company should take
from us the lands in question. This cues.
ton ls divided into two parts: First, the
upper part at the creek; second, the lower
part or the Bushfeld property. There Is
o controversy in regard 10 the northern
line Of Twentieth street, and yet appre.
bend there will be no difficulty In fixing
1t. Their plat Is erroneous fifteen feet four
inches, Is there any necessity to take
anything of Of our buttresS? Eitherit Is
necessary for them 10 take oH the buttress,
or II Is not necessary to take the land.
Mr.. Becker says, while the piece outside
Of this line Is not necessary, yet they
might as well pay for 1t. The issue before
you Is: Is there any necessity whatever
Tor them IN take this land.
AS to the lower piece Of ground, II Is
somewhat singularly described in the pc.
titon. Does this petition satisfy you that
these.fve feet asked for are necessary to
this extension.
Was this piece OF land in use at the
time these condemnation proceedings
were initiated? You will find by refer.
ence to the fact that 1t was. AS to the
creek piece q considerable portion Is al.
ready u use, occupied as It Is by the
buttrest Of the B. ( 0. bridge, which
has been standing for the last
twenty-five years. Why, they might
as we'll take any lands We have,
or a portion Of the lot your houses
are On, leaving you onlythe house and the
grq6nd It occupies. And now, as to The
trstle erected, we had perfect right In
VIew Of the condemnation proceedings to
tsEe such measures as would secure US
possession OF our property.
= l can see where this piece OF ground
Pmay become essential. We own land
north Of the creek and would we deem It
necessary we could erect structure over
the creek and lay rails upon 1t, thus rem
deting available moro standing room.
The increase In business renders this
thing probable.
Mr.. W. P. Hubbard followed Mr.. Lamb
and made the following argument in
closing:
Heurge1 upon tie jury not to under.
estimate the importance Of this case. He
began Interviewing the relative and abso.
Lutte rights oil persons oS corporations 10
possession Of property and It's liability to
condemnation for public purposes. a
man who owns property can refuse all the
money that might be offered him for that
property; yet his State that protects him
and his property has the right 10 take that
same property for public purposes. Tho
State has delegated that right to corpora.
tions, and under this We come before
you.
It Is not necessary for railroad to take
all the land condemned; fourteen feet is
generally all that Is necessary for road
beds. yet more is always taken. We have
shown the absolute necessity OF the five
feet TO be taken from the Bushheld pro.
perry for our extension purposes, but we
propose to pay what you or any other
twelve men say 1t is worth. AS to the
piece Of ground at the creek, the only de-.
tense they offer is the buttress upon it,
and which we do not propose to injure, as
was shown by the testimony Of Mr.. Becker.
The only object Of the B. 4 o., according
to its counsel, is 10 retain Its land, yet 1t
attempts TO keep that land, which is, as
every other mans land is, subject to con.
demnation from the operation Of the same
law that takes his for public purposes, and
that without being in bona file use for rail.
road purposes.
The conduct OF Mr.. Becker in the mat.
ter of laying out the work Of the proposed
extension TO Benwood was then justified
by Mr.. Hubbard.
And as to the trestle. In the erection
of trestle at considerable cost
was It reasonable expenditure
Of money, when it is liable to
demolition the first severe rise OF
tho water2 A corporation can do only
such things as thelaw granting It's priv.
leges allows it to do, and the prevention
Of an extension countenanced BY all law
Is not one Of the privileges granted by such
laws.
At the conclusion OF Mr.. Hubbard's
argument the Jury was told TO take a re.
cess until 1880.
At7:S0 the Court again met. Mr.. Rus.
sell presented some instructions to the
Court and asked them to be given to the
jury, which the Court refused. Excepted
to by counsel for the B. & O. The Jury
then retired to ito room at s O'Clock and
at 9:05 returned with a verdict for the
7. W. & K, granting the right OF con-
domination in both cases, viz: the land at
the mouth OF the creek and at Twenty
third street.