The Anaconda standard., 1896-01-14
ITS DOUBLE PURPOSE
Technical Points Involved in the Spur
Case From Divide.
Mr.. LAVELL'S TESTIMONY
He Has Protested for Years. But
All the Satisfaction He Got Was
Broad Smile From the Utah
Northern Employees.

The condemnation suit of the Oregon
Short Line and Utah Northern against
Geoffrey Lavell came up for hearing
before Judge Mediation yesterday
morning on an order to show cause
why commissioners should not be APP
pointed TO appraise the value and as
sess damages for a right-of-way
through Mr.. Lavells stock ranch near
Divide. on the Big Hole river The
railroad company has for a number of
years been running a spur from its
main line to a sawmill owned by E. NJ
| Trask and others. the road crossing
a corner of Mr. Lavells ranch and over
a county road for some distance, but
| never had title to the right-of AS
| Mr.. Lavelps rights had been continu-
| ously ignored by the railroad he finally
| tore up that portion of the track which
was on his land and the company
brought the action to condemn the
right-of-way.
Chief Engineer O'Melveney and Su-
perintendent Van Dusen of the Idaho
| division testified that the track was
used to transport supplies to the saw
mill and lumber and wood to the main
track from the mill The track, they
said, was also used as a switch and
| side track. Cars with material for the
people in the vicinity of Dewey were
switched on the track and unloaded.
| and freight trains were side tracked on
| the spur to permit other trains to pass.
| In the last three years, they testified,
| 627 cars of stuff had been shipped over
the spur and 29 cars had been delivered
there. The track, they said, was not
| absolutely necessary as a switch or
side track, as the railroad company
had sufficient ground on its present
right of way on which to build side
tracks, and the company could also
pick out several other routes to the
saw mill but it would be more expen-
sive and not so convenient. Trask, the
saw mill man, declared he couldn't op-
crate his mill without that particular
track, except with a great expense
such as his business would not justify.
He said he had 100 car loads of lumber
and about $500 cords of wood awaiting
shipment now, and expected to ship
about 1,500 car loads of material the
coming season. Trask said he had
known the county road to be blocked
up with trains ON the spur. a matter
of which Mr.. Lavell had particularly
complained.
Mr. Lavell testified that the track
had been built especially for the ac-
commodation of the saw mill and when
the mill was not running IL was used
only as a switch and he had known
long freight trains to block up the road
for half an hour at a time and COM
pletely cut him off from going from one
part of his ranch to the other. The
| road passes in front of his farm build
ings and practically condemns them.
Sometimes a freight train stops on the
main line and another is on the switch
so that 1T puts him in a pocket and he
can neither get in nor out. Mr.. La
veil said the railroad could get a short
er route and one just as good and with
far less damage to him. The county
road occupied by the railroad ds the
only one leading up to his ranch and
frequently the trainmen make a flying
switch and run into his stock, which
happens to be on the road and when he
protests the trainmen laugh at him.
For six years, said Mr.. Lavell he had
been trying TO get some consideration
from the railroad company but without
success.
Judge McHatton took the matter un-
der Amusement, but took occasion to
express an opinion that was not at all
favorable to the railroad company He
said IL was evident from the Testimony
that the principle use to which the
track was put by the company was as
a switch, a purpose for which, in Itself
the court would not be justified in or
dering a condemnation. It's use in
shipping to and from the mill and to
other parties in the vicinity of course
made it a public use. The question
to be considered, said the court was
whether the ra ilroad should be granted
the right-of-way and then after paying
damages as such. be given the right
to continue using the track as a switch
as II had been doing, when the evil
dence showed that the company had
ample ground for a side track and that
the spur could be constructed in an
other manner and without inconveni-
ence and with less damage to Mr.. La
veil. IL is a notorious fact, said the
court, that railroad corporations, when
granted a right-of-way under their
right Of eminent domain, they fire.
quently forget the duty they owe to
others and regard the right of Others In
very Indifferent manner. to say the
least. The court would be very much
averse to placing the railroad, unneces-
sarily, in a position where IT would OBJ
tain n legal right to continue the use
of the track as IL had in the past and
make 1t very disagreeable for others
who have some rights there Ii is evil
dent that the railroad cannot divest
itself of a selfish purpose by seeking TO
condemn the rigbt-of-way for one pur-
pose and then use IL for another. and
IL IL shall appear to the court that that
is the purpose IL shall refuse to allow
the property to be condemned and al
low the railroad to seek another route
1t was suggested by the railroad
company's attorneys that the court in
Its order. might prohibit the railroad
from using the spur as a switch and
side track. but the Judge was in doubt
IL the court had the power to make
such an order.