The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1886-12-09

| Defendant also admits that said
Monday Creek flows through said
lands and that Sugar Run is a
branch thereof and emp,ies into
said creek above and near said
lands.
Defendant also admits that ev-
er since said 1st day of March. s &.
| D. 1888, it has owned and operat-
ed large coal mines along and
near said Sugar Run and its trib-
ularies but says its coai mines
are and always have been prop
erly located along said streams
and their Tributaries, and that
the mining at and operations of
said mines and the deposit and
disposal of Inc slack and all 9th
er refuse thereirom was conduct
ed in n prudent and careful man
ner, and in the mode iii general
practice in the operations of all
| similar coal mines in the Hook
ing Valley and surrounding min
ing districts, without malice or
negligence on the part of defend
ant, etc.
That all Of SAID slack and re-
fuse matter was deposited upon
IFS own lands and at the only
feasible place or places it could
be deposited and carry on the
business Of coal mining.
The defendant oenles that al
any time it deposited slack and
other refnse from lis mines on the
margin Of Sugar Rnn, or in any
other place, for the purpose Of
having il washed away by said
stream, or that ii permitted the
same TO he placed or 10 remain
on the banks Of said stream or
IN any other place for the purpose
Of having it washed away by said
stream.
1t denies that The coal slack
and 3ther refuse from its said
mines covered up anv part OF
plaintiffs land, or filled up any
part of the channel OF Monday
Creek, or that it polluted the wa
rers thereof. or was tie cause of
rendering plaintiffs land or any
part Of it swampy, less desirable,
or has been the cause Of any Of
lie injury complained OF by the
plaintiff.
The defendant further answer
ing. says that prior to March 1st,
1883, The time when the plaintiff
was organized as a corporation,
and continuously up to the time
OF the filing of this petition. other
persons caused slack TO be thrown
and placed in said run or stream,
and that the plaintiff himself
operated during said time coal
! bank near said stream and threw
coal slack in said stream; that
said slack filled up the channel
1ol said Sugar Run and caused all
of said plaintiffs land to be COW
cred with slack and caused all
the injury complained fin plain
t!ii's petition.
The plaintiff in his reply de-
nies that the deposit and disposal
Of the slack ard other refuse from
defendants coal mines was made
i'll prudent and careful Kramer.
or without negligence toward
plaintiff. ETC., and denies that the
defendant deposited the slack
from lis mines upon the only
feasible place compatible with
its carrying on the business Of
mining coal from its said mines.
The plaintiff denies having
placed any portion of such slack
in The stream that contributed 10
the injury complained Of.
And he denies that any of the inlu-
ries complained Of occurred or existed |
prior TO plaintiff organization.
These several claims made by the |
parties i'll their picadings or written |
statements, con stitute the issues you |
are to determine and to which the testi- /!
mony that has been introduced before |
you has been addressed and directed. |
All matters of fact alleged in the PEI |
t:tion that are admitted or not denied |
by .he answer are to be taken as true |
and likewise are all matters OF fact al |
legged in the answer not admitted or de- !
MED by the averments of the petition !
and reply, are to be taken as true, leav-
ing in controversy before you only such |
matters that arc in dispute by the aver |
ments OF these different plead,ngs.
The first principal question that will |
demand your attention, is, whether or |
net the defendant Intentionally threw !
and deposited, or permitted 10 be
thrown and deposited, the coal dirt
slack and refuse from It's coal mines
into Sugar Creek, or in the immediate
vicinity of such creek, with the par
pose or intention OF haviHc the same by
oreration of rain falling upon it,washed
into the said creek.
This is averred in the petition and
denied in the answer, anu De.9re tue
plaintiff will be eGtitled to verdict at
your hands. he must satisfy you by
evidence the truth OF such avernent.
If lie shall fail to satisfy yoli OF the
truth Of tins averment, that vii! be an
end OF your ;.bors, for in that event
your verdict must be for the defendant
For though the defendant SAYS IN
answer, that ii was guilty OF no negl-
geace or carelessness in the operation /
Of It's coal mines, and deposited its |
slack upon the only feasible place Tor |
ITS deposit, etc, and this IS denied in |
the reply. Yet the plaintiff can only
recover because of the facts OF his pc
tiion, and the only wrong conduct !
complained OF in the petition is this in
territorial deposit Of the slack, etc, in |
the stream or in snch proximity thereto !
that 1t was intended it should wash in
the said creek. aud it is for the couse-
quence oil this wrongful conduct upon
the part OF The defendant that the plain.
titi may recover,