The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-04-13
ISLAND FERRYS CASE.
The Application for NJ Injunction
Argued Yesterday.
-FOUR ABLE SPEECHES ARE MADE
Aud Judge PAUL. Takes tho Matter
Under AdvIsement-Ths Question
OF An Exclusive Franchise Con-
sldcred-A Statement on the Sub
ject or Sor.Cscr.

Yesterday in the circuit court. Judge
PAUL. on the beach, the application OF
the Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Com
pany fox AZ injunction restraining the
Wheeling Island Perry and Packet
Company from operating its steam
ferry from the city to tho Island was
argued BY the counsel for the opposing
parties. The proceedings opened With
the presentation and reading Of the an
swer 10 the application and the submit.
ting OF numerous plnss, documents and
other exhibi.s on behalf OF the deIend-'
ant company, which was pEesentetby
Hon. ]. 3. Somnesyille and Mr.. W. H.
Hearne. while tho bridge iuteres. was
in the hands Of Messrs.A. J. Clarke and
u. N. Russell.
Mr.. Clarke opened the argument, re-
viewing the claims OF the bridge com
pany and tho answer Of the defendant.
He said the claim that his client had
abandoned it's franchise was ~uutsnable.
and he maintained that tho bridge COM
pany had acquired the title 10 ground
In dispute by purchase. Referring 10
the claim that the city had condemned
this ground for q street, he said the
bridge company had not been 4 party to
any such proceedings, and so could not
lose its rights thereby. Mr.. Clarke IN
cumming up said that there are three
distinct grounds for au injunction. Our
rights have been taken without our
consent or any compensation. In the
second place, the plaintiffs bill SUBJ
stantia!iy alleges insolvency, and the
defendants DO not reply to that. Third,
the operating OF the ferry works q On
tinual injury 10 the bridge company,
which injury is not susceptible OF
T%epara.ion."
Mr. Hearne followed Mr. Clarke. He
reviewed the questions c. Law and oil
TACT clearly and iorcibly. holding that
the bridge company did not acquire the
title TO any ground except that on
which its abutmenis stand. aud that
under the existing circumstances the
bridge company would have been fool
ish TO have secured Q ferry franchise
which it did not need, did not want and
could not use. He defended the county
commissioner right to grant q ferry
privilege, and read from the state laws
on the subject He also quoted the acts
OF 1892, which, on page 52I, contains the
following provision:
Every ferry established and not dis
continued before this chapter takes ei-
feet may continue 10 be kept;
1,.t 20 49,, sT,ch f.rr. ~ INV farr, +hag
may be hereafter established, be disused
for two years and ak months, and any
part OF said time be after this chapter
takes effect. it shall, BIZ reason OF such
disuse, be ipSo tdct0 discontinued, with
ont any judicial or other proceeding FOR
that purpose"
Mr.. ~Sommerville followed 3lr. Hearne.
He held that ii the Wheeling & Bel
mont Bridge Company held any ferry
franchise. it was not exclusive, and
could 5aly cove. so much ground as vas
needed for its purposes, and 1t could
not be claimed that the ground in dis
pute was 60 needed, because the Wheel
ing Bridge Company's steel bridge in
tervened between the plaintiff 3 bridge
and the defendants ferry. The plain
tif's claim, he said, had been settled in
this court, in the supreme court OF ap-
peals, and in the United States supreme
court.
Mr.. Russell closed the argument with
an able and incisiye speech. reaffirming
and defending the plaintiffs claims in
every respect. In all the argument
there was . good deal OF reference TO
easements" and ''incorporeal heridit-
aments" and other technical subiects-
When, about 6 o'clock, Mr.. Russell
concluded his iorcible presentation OF
the case, Judge PAUL said 80 many au-
thoritiesha been cited which he de-
sired to consult that he would take the
case under adYisement, and would
notify the parties in interest when he
was ready to render a decision.
The county commissioner room.
where the court meets. was well filed
with interested auditors all day.