The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-11-23
GETS RIGHT OF-WAY.
Great Northern Wins Its Con-
demnation Suit.
,rspoNDENTS WILL APPEAL.
S-,..,ee Case That Recalls an Absent
Husband's Villsiny-Federal
Court Calendar.

-, Al the superour court is concerned, the
-, Northern has won its suit to condemn
-, .ogwav on Railroad avenue across the
-. ~ the Northern Pacific anu the Columbia
! U,e,t Sound. south OF Yesler avenue, and
y. extensive property in Whitechspel for the
=. AZ depot and terminal grounds. Judge
,sshtenbcrg, before whom the case has been on
-, tor several days past, last evening granted
=. ,1..ion OF the Great Northern's subsidiary
.'s.c,a,ton, the Seattle & Montana, for the en-
s.ssIrg Of jury to assess damages caused by
=. crossing. Notice of appeal has been given
= me respondents attorneys, and the case
"a 20 to the supreme court of the state before
=, further proceeding are taken toward the
I sndsmnasion of the property.
rom the resuming o. the hearing yesterday
.s,eiug the defense wound up its case. Among
=. v,snesses we're B. +. Bush, superintendent
- chief engineer OF the Oregon improvement
ecupsny; E. H. McHenry, principal assistant
/, s..inecr OF the Northern Pacific, and q. w.
nesinson, assistant general superintendent OF
=. Northern Pacific, all of whom testified
..,lnst the feasibility OF the Seattle Montana's
Ian Of crossing the other tracks.
The argument of the case began in the middle
Al the afternoon, and after an iEtsrmtssion was
continued at an evening session until 1879
o'clock. Judge Thomas Burke addressed the
eourt IN support of the petition, and J. NJ. Ash
tan. of Tacoma, and A. f. Burleigh against it.
Ths chief point made on behalf of the petitioner
v a. to the action OF the petitioner in good faith
"a condemn the property for public use. The
respondents attorneys maintain that they be-
jne arst in possession OF the property the petit
neuer had no right to disturb them in that pos
..a:ou, especially without showing the
rscsssity for so doing. They insisted that there
vu nothing to prevent the Seattle & Montana
nom laying its tracks along the west side of
R.!rosd avenue or even still further out over
Ne tide OATS.
n delivering his opinion Judge Lchtcnberg
e.lsd attention to the argument OF the respond
ear to the effect that the petition must be de-
rjd because the petitioner had no legal right
puks the property OF tho respondents, and
us And that is being used for public use by
on puty cannot be taken for like purpose by
suosae. II this was all there was in the case
tSas nsld be no trouble in deciding it. brit
this rhvould not operate to prevent ons
,Llnd Rom running q right-of-way across
~ ta9s OF another railroad. The leading de-
dGou are to the effect that two railroads
sand On an equality. The fact that the
ehHtss of the one is older does not withdraw
nssQnal right of condemnation of another for
! crossing, provided there be an equitable
DIVISION of privileges. This brought forward
he question an to whether the action OF the
peHa0ner WAS 10 MAKE CROSSING or was the
taking OF tracks. BY large prepondeIance OF
eyidenee the court was satisfied that it was a
cmsng.
In conclusion Judge Lchtenberg directed an
order to be entered to the effect that the court
~ satisfied that the use to which the prop
ery asked to be condemned was to be put was
spublic one and that the appropriation of
Hxa necessary. He also directed an order to
kue directing the sheriff to summon a jury to
ness the damages. The same oder was to
aspiy not only in the case to condemn right-of-
way across the tracks, but III the two cases
brought to condsmusW hitechapel property for
tspos purposes.
NJ Burleigh. on behalf of the respondents,
Ucspted to the ruling OF the court. aud gave
Bptce Of an appeal to the supreme court