The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-03-23
A rERRY rom.
A judicial Decision In the Martins
Ferry Dispute.

Ferry Dispute.
Some mention has several timel beon made
by the 1STEIlIoESeER OF controversy that
has existed concerning the franchise for the
ferry between North Wheeling and Martins
Ferry. A claim hiss been made that there
was legal right 70 operate ferry, other
than the one which has been In operation
for many years and the franchises Of which
belong 70 Levi Inglebright ind another.
Two or three years hRo the corporate autho.
rifles OF Martins Ferry issued license 70
one George Jones 10 run ferry Of q point
above the old ferry II was claimed by In.
glebright that the operation OF such a ferry
would Interfere with his vested rights, and
llat another ferry was not necessary for the
accommodation Of the public. and a. a rssnIt
an injunction proceeding was resOrted 10
against Jones and tue town OF Martin's Merry.
The st. ClaiFsville Chronicle says that at tie
present term the cause was tried 10 Judge
Kelly, and on Monday decision was rem.
dered which we publish In Iull, Following
Is the finding Of the Court:
This cause came on TO DO heard upon tho
pIeadlngSS and testimony and was submitted
TO the Court and the evidence and afpument
Of counsel having been heard, the CoSFt and
that plaintiffs have q right and interest in
the lands described in the petition, extend.
ing along the Ohio river from the division
line on the south, known as the line between
the Daniel Zane and EbeneeZer Martinlanls
10 the line on the north, Known as M
line between lands OF said Martin and
George PAUL, for the purpose Of making
thereon and keeping up ferry landing
or Landings, wharf or wharYes, and d
road or roads thereto, at such point or
points as they may select and may be neces.
Sary for ferry or ferries across the Ohio
river but that besides said interest In the
LAND, plaintiffs have no exclusive right TO ne
business and the profits Of the ferry or fer.
rieS " and from said lands, and that another
ferry or ferries may be established, provided
I can be done without interfering with Inc
interest aforesaid OF PLANTING In said
land; and that the interest OF PLAINTIFF
may be forfeited by them by failure on
their part to maintain and keep up such
ferry or ferries aud procure license
therefor according 10 law, as the public In.
terest and commerce may require, The
Court further find that plaintiffs have con.
tnned and continue TO the present time 10
maintain and keep up, under license there.
for, sufficient ferry and that no other ferry
was at the time license was issued to the dc.
PENDANT Jones, required or needed for the
public convenience, and that the ferry which
said defendant threatened to establish under
said license, would interfere with the inter.
ests Of plaintiffs in said land.
It Is therefore ordered and adludged that
defendant Jones be and Is hereby pefpetuaily
enloined from establishing and carrying Of,
a Terry to or from said lands under tie ii.
cense,or licenses heretofore issued to him.
and tits further ordered that dctcndent, Inc
village Of Martins Ferry, be and It is hereby
enjoined until further order, from establish
Ing. or granting license for u ferry to or from
said land. while plaintiffs right therein con.
!inues, without the consent OF plaintiffs. 1t
is further ordered that defendants pay the
costs Of this action, which are here adiIdged
against them.