Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-04-12
FERRY COMPANY'S SIDE
AN ANSWER TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
BY THE BRIDGE COMPANY,
Filed in the Circuit Court and Placed in the
Hands Of the Bridge Company's Attorneys.
Interesting Points.


Company, filed their answer to the bill
of complaint of the Wheeling C Bel
mont Bridge Company. Judge PAUL at
once placed the paper in the hands OF
the attorneys for the Bridge Company,
Messrs. A. j. Clark and Henry NJ. Rus
sell, for examination. They will look
over it, and be prepared to submit their
arguments at $50 o'clock this morning,
before Judge PAUL, in Part l OF the
Circuit Court. The answer is carefully
prepared, and goes over the entire
ground covered in the plea OF the Bridge
Company. 1t is very long, filling some
twenty or more typewriter sheets.
The answer, In substance. follows.
Tho defendant calls for full proof that
the Bridge Company was about to begin
the construction Of a bridge In 1s47.
The allegation that the bridge has since
that time been maintained in good order
is denied;
s'and defendant AYERS the fact to be that
while such bridge was sufficient TO accom-
date the foot travel, wagons and ordinary
vehicles desiring to cross the same, that
said bridge was not, and is not deemed
sufficient even by the plaintiff itself, for
the passage Of street cars propelled by
electricity, and that plaintiff refused sew
eral years ago to allow such cars TO cross
said bridge, assigning as the reason there
for that said
BRIDGE WAS INSUFFICIENT
for the purpose" and by reason Of this an
other bridge was constructed and is now in
direct and lively competition with the
plaintiff.
The defendant admits that the tolls were
large up to the time of the erection OF the
new steel bridge, and have not been very
valu able since. The defendant also alleges
that ferries had been operated between
Wheeling Island and the eastern bank Of the
Ohio, for half a century prior to the build
ing of plaintiffs bridge; and it charges the
fact to be that the landing place OF said
ferries on the Island, was about where the
western abutment Of the suspension
bridge is now located, and on the east
shore at the foot of Ninth street, and at the
foot of Eleventh street,
The allegation that d. e. List, Daniel
Zane, and Henry Moore, trustees, were
ever owners of such ferry, is denied.
defendant further says that while it
might have been of great Importance to
the plaintiff for il TO have acquired the
estate in interest which it claims TO have
acquired, in the ferry between the city of
Wheeling and the Island, the defendant
denies that the plaintiff ever did acquire
any such estate or interest, and AYERS the
fact to be that the grantors named in the
deed had no right or authority TO convey
any such deed or interest 10 the plaintiff.
"Said defendant further says that by
certain acts of the General Assembly of
Virginia and certain acts
amendatory thereof the w, & B.
Bridge Co. was authorized to erect bridge
over the Ohio river, and also empowered
to purchase, among other things, all ferry
rights and privileges between Zane's Is
land and the main Virginia shore, out said
act had reference to a certain ferry then in
operation and the said plaintiff,
protesting to be acting under the authority
of the act aforesaid, not only purchased
the rights and privileges OF said ferry, but
also attempted TO purchase the easement
and incorporeal hereditament set up in ex-
hibit one Of its bill" which was not part
OF said ferry rights.
NO EXCLUSIVE GRANT.
The defendant denies that the plaintiff
has power TO receive any exclusive
or any other grant or power to operate
ferry, or to purchase or hold landings for
the same, other than those of the aforesaid
ferry, and then only for the purpose Of ex-
tinguishment, or TO covenant with those
holding ferry franchise, or owning lands
upon which such ferry landed.
Defendant further says that while plain
till may have operated a ferry temporarily
prior TO 1859, sit has not operated a ferry,
nor has it claimed or exercised. or attempt
ed to exercise the right TO do so for
period of more than 30 years past" and
there has not been a steam ferry operated
during that period.
Defendant says further that at least 20
years ago the city took possession OF the
place near the foot of Eleventh street, and
paved and used il as part of the public
wharf, and has occupied and used IL con-
tinuously, land adversely to the claim Of
said plaintiffs" TO the present time. II
the plaintiff ever did acquire the interest
which it claims, it long ago lost it by its
failure to exercise its right thereto, and
by permitting the use thereof by other
parties. The plaintiffs, well knowing and
confessing that it had no such estate or
interest in a ferry between the city and
the Island, purchased in fee simple a
portion Of said Island lying along the
eastern shore, Immediately north of
and adjoining the western sbut-
ment of the suspension bridge, and
"said tract Of land is portion of that part
of the Island, in which the plaintiff is now
claiming an easement or incorporeal her
ediment in the said deed" A portion of
the property claimed by the Bridge Com
pany, is now divided into town lots, known
as Hubbard and RussePS addition TO the
city of Wheeling.
Defendant further says that there were
no exclusive rights and privileges existing
between the Island and main shore, and
if there were, they were extinguished by
an act Of the Legislature Of w. Va, as
fully decided and determined by the Su-
preme Court of Appeals in the case Of W.
& B. B. Co. VS.. w. B. Co, and also by the
Supreme Court Of the United States.
THE OHIO STREET EXTENSION.
Defendant further says that the extern
sion Of Ohio street was established in 1876,
and has for eighteen years been used for
public purposes, adversely to any right or
interest by said Bridge Company; that on
July 23d, 1883, the City Council amended
an ordinance ordaining that the east end OF
Ohio street should be used as public
landing, and since that time has been used
continuously for that purpose. The Wheel
ing Bridge Company, by an order Of the
Circuit Court, condemned certain lands be-
longing 10 the plaintiff, for its own use,
and the plaintiff never claimed any ease
ment or incorporeal hereditsment while
said litigation was pending Therefore, by
the adverse possession Of said property,
the city had a right to grant defendant
permission to land its boats at Ohio street,
The defendant denies that it has taken
any property of the plaintiff Of the value of
So, 600 or any other value, and denies that
the tolls diverted from plaintiffs bridge
will equal or exceed the sum Of 5000
The plaintiff has not now, or never has
had, any title to any ferry landing on the
eastern shore of the Ohio river.
ExToRTIoNATE TOLLS.
In concluding. the answer OF the Ferry