Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1890-09-14
SUSTAINED.
1 DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT, At
OHARLESTOWN, YESTERDAY
Of Grsa. Deal Of Local Interest-The Circuit Court
Sustained in the Matter Of the Condemnation Suit
Brought by the Wheeling Bridge Company

In the Supreme Court, sitting at Charles
town. Yesterday, Judge Lucas rendered a
decision in the case OF the Wheeling Bridge
Company V. the Wheeling and Belmont
Bridge Company, appealed from the Cir
cult Court Of Ohio county, sustaining the
decision made by the local Court.
The effect of the decision is to permit the
Wheeling Bridge Company to proceed with
its condemnation proceedings, brought
against the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge
Company.
On February "a, last, arguments were
heard before Judge PAUL in Part TWO OF
the Circuit Court, in the matter OF the appll-
cation of the Wheeling Bridge Company,
for the condemnation Of a strip OF land
twenty-five feet wide by three hundred ana
twenty-six feet long, fronting on the east
side of South Front street, and running
back along the north side Of ONO street,
belonging TO the Wheeling and Belmont
Rridge Company. The Wheeling Bridge
Company made its application through w.
y Hubbard. its counsel, and the arguments
were bv MIR. Hubbard, on the part OF the
nlaintiffs. and Messrs. Clarke and Russell
foY. the defendant company. After the ap-
plication of the plaintiff had been made,
The defendant company rejOined with seven
separate answers. TO which the plaintiff re
Joined that the answers were not sufficient
I'm law. These answers came up for argu-
ment in due season, and the Court over
ruled the objections TO pleas Nos. /, :, 8,
and 4. and sustainedlthe objections to pleas
Nos. ,. q and :, and rejected them. Inc
$50 Az tod n
bv the Court and on its motion the SAID
pleas Nos. >. q and were made part OF the
record.
The petitioner replied generally to each
of the first four pleas, and the hearing was
set for a special term TO be thereafter called
The first four pleas may be summarized
as follows:
First. that the land desired by the plaintiff
wa, not necessary for the purpose of construct
ing the proposed bridge.
Second. that the land is necessary for the
proper exercise OF the functions Of the Wheel
inc and Belmont Bridge Company.
Third. showing the necessity Of "a guy pier on
the south side OF the suspension bridge.
Fourth, showing that said guy pier Is partly
on the land sought 10 be taken.
The Court held that these matters were
purely questions of fact, and directed that
evidence be taken before a jury. A jury
WlA UtlOEuluElN oullluAbAANAs lAl AAAhNNNA. -
gone over bv experts, and verdict was
rendered April 18th for the plaintiff. An
appeal was AT once taken TO the supreme
Court.
The following telegram explains the de-
cision made Yesterday:
Special telegram TO The sunday Register
CuARLEsrowN,W Va, September 13.-The
principal point involved in the case Of
the Wheeling Bridge Company VS..
the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Com
pany. was whether it was entitled to mo-
nopolv of ferry privileges across the river
within half mile in straight line either
way from its bridge IL claimed this by
virtue of an amendment TO its charter
passed in 1S41. which authorizes il TO pur-
chase and hold all existing ferry rights and
privileges across the river at that point
Under this authority il purchased the
ancient ferry called "Zane's," which when
SO purchased had by virtue of gen
eral law applicable to all ferries
the mOnOpOlistic feature ABOVE
named of excluding all other
bridges or ferries from being erected with
i'm halfa mile The Court holds that this
feature was no part of the original charter
or license of Zane's Ferry, but became an
incident attached TO il by the passage OF a
general law which was subject TO repeal at
the pleasure of the Legislature; that the
Bridge Company when it purchased Zane's
Ferry took and held il with exactly the
same rights and privileges as pertained
20 il i'm the hands of Zane, and that the
mOnODOlistic feature being repealaDlc in
the hands of Zane. remained equally so IN
the hands of his vendees, the Wheeling
and Belmont Bridge Company, hence when
i'm lSS2 the Legislature repealed the law
which had been construed to prohiOlt the
building of a bridge within one-haf mile
of an established ferry it destroyed the
mopOpOistic feature heretofore incident TO
public ferries. and the Wheeling company
had no right 10 complain. The Court dld
not consider that there was any question
of vested rights in the case, but II was
simply "a question of public expediency
whether the act in question should be re
pealed or remain upon the stature books
The only other question involved was
whether one internal improvement COM
pany could condemn the land Of another
company upon payment of Just compensa-
ton, and the Court held that this could be
done, provided the use of the land
was not necessary for the ENJOY
ment of the franchise. 1t defined
the word use as contained in
our statute as not meaning every trivial or
temporary occupation of the land, but a
use necessary, and without which the fran
chise would be materially impaired. The
Court held that all the instructions OF the
defendant which the trial court refused
were properly rejected, except the eighth,
which ought to have beenlgiven by that.
This was not cause of reversal, because 1t
manifestly appeared that the defendant
was not injured.
The opinion was rendered by Judge Luz
cas- and concurred in by the whole court.