The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1895-07-06
road can do to make your enterprise
success.
Yours truly
HUGH j. CHISHOLM.
PRESTDENrN UNdEDV,C TurcnJNIONV

for the complainant, and questioned by
Mr, Libby, said that he first became in
terested in the power company and was
director till the last annual meeting
in July last. He was interested in the
the promoter of it. He has been di-
rector of the Otis Falls Pulp Company
rom rom the beginning up to the present ire en-
| been the leading stockholder in the pow
er company and the Otis Falls Pulp Com
| pany.
Mr.. Chisholm was a director in the
paper company until the acceptance of
his resignation some time this spring.
Since the beginning, Mr.. Emery has been
| a director in the railroad company.
During the erection of the paper mill he
had had frequent consultations with Mr.
| Chisholm. Up to this spring the relation
| between the companies has been practi-
cally harmonious. Things had rubbed a
| little, but the paper company had OBJ
| tanned what they wanted.
| In December 1894, the power company
ceased to be stockholder in the paper
company, and witness S interest in the Otis
| Falls Pulp Company became smaller at
that time. He exchanged his holdings in
that company for the power company's
stock in the paper company. AS direc-
tor of the railroad company, the witness
had no knowledge of any action by the
board of directors authorizing the re-
moval of the track upon the 18th of
| May last.
Witness said that day or two before
the track was taken up Mr.. Chisholm
| sent to him some notes of the Otis Falls
Pulp Company requesting him to put his
name on the back Of them. He refused
| because he had not sufficient interest in
| the pulp company to warrant it. His
name was already on some $40, 900 of the
| company'S paper
| The investment of the paper company
| is about $700, 600
There had been talk between witness
| and Mr.. Chisholm about the track. The
latter said that the power company
| thought Canal street was not strong
enough for the track, but they would
| let it remain if the paper company would
guarantee to make good all damage to
| the street, that is, the whole embank-
ment
Mr.. Emery said they would make good
any damage resulting from the pressure
of the track. Mr.. Chisholm demanded
a guarantee for all damages. Mr.. Emery
refused to agree to this Then they had
| p verbal agreement as to q coal conveyer
on aa endless chain and arrangements
were made to secure one, but the matter
came to nothing.
The cars have been run ON the streets
for the last two years. and to witness S
knowledge there has been nothing to in
dictate any weakeningof the embankment.
Canal street has never been used for any
purpose except the convenience of the
mills located upon it.
JUDGE SYMONDS'S CROSS EXAMI-
NATION.
Gross examined by Judge Symonds. the
was the original company that
built the dams, ETC. He had with
him the deed or lease from the power
company to the paper company. At the
time the conveyance of the deed was
made it was the understanding that there
should be track on Canal street. As
to whether there was no such agreement
in the county record, he couldn't say.
"Do you understand or claim that your
deed from the power company gives you
any right to track upon Canal street?''
1.-The deed will speak for itself. y
Judge Symonds read from the deed to
show that there was no mention made
of track on Canal street
The witness admitted that there was
nothing in the deed to give claim to
a track on canal street.
| AS to whether the railroad company
had any right on the street, witness sup
posed the power company and the rail
| road company were so closely connected
| that what one wanted the other would
concede.
| Judge Symonds urged that according
| to the original plans it was intended to
run the side track on the other side of
the mill from Canal street. To do this
trestle would be necessary. Witness
/ I
tended that the embankment on which
| is Canal street was not strong enough
| for locomotive 1t was agreed that the
cars should be hauled by horses The
paper company shad never expected the
| use of a locomotive.
The power company exacted from Mr..
| Emery guarantee that he should be
responsible for all damage to the embank-
ment because of the track.
| Judge Symonds urged that the lay
| ing of the track was never intended to be
permanent
Mr.. Emery did not understand that the
railroad company had continually con-
tended that the track was only tempo
rary.
''Were you not notified in December,
| 1894 that those tracks would be removed
on the first day OF May?'
''I have no recollection of it,
Witness admitted that the power compa-
| ny had frequently expressed Itself IN re-
gard to danger to the embankment He
also admitted that the laying of the
side track according to the original plan,
over the trestle, would involve simply the
removal of portion of the upper story
of building.
Judge Symonds wished to know if Mr..
Emery claimed that the letter from Mr..
| Chisholm, (above printed), gave him a
right to claim that the railroad company
| should huild the treStle.
Mr.. Emery understood that the letter
gave him a claim that the railroad com
pany should run their track so that the
mill might be supplied with it's 10, 900
tons of coal, without the expense of cart
| ing.
Witness thought that the cost of chang
ing the haul-up, because of changing the
track would much exceed $3.50
Judge Sy1nonds urged that the location
of the track, as it has been for the past
two years, has reduced the width of Canal
street from 40 feet to 12-foot bridge
over the haul-up.
Mr.. Emery urged that that street was
never intended for any other purpose
than the use of the mills. He also de-
clared that the lowering of the log haul
up, because of the change of the track,
| =