The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1896-10-30
A Large Attendance Attracted to the
Council Chamber Yesterday.
EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE CREEK
Health officer conry Called as a witness
For the Plaintiff with John Robbins ana
william Neiswenter- Continued
Until Next Wednesday.

mas erected across the creek IN the First
ward, was heard from again yesterday. All
parties met at 1870 in the afternoon to take
testimony to enable the court to decide
whether or not the wall shall come down.
The session was held in the Council
Chamber and there was a large attendance of
interested and disinterested parties Mr.,
Flynn was present with his counsel, George
J. Wadlinger and John F. Whaleu, Esqs., of
Pottsville. The borough was represented by
j, II. Pomeroy Esq, of town. and A. w.
Schalck, Esq, of Pottsville, and the follow
ing witnesses were scattered about the room.
Health officer Patrick Conry, John w.
Curtin, secretary of the Board of Health.
Justice J. j. Cardin, James b. McIIalc aud
p. d. Holman, members of the Board of
Health, Town Clerk w. j. Watkins, ex-
Justice w. II. Shoemaker, John Robbins.
William Neiswender Otto Carl, Michael
Hefron, John Bartsch, Michael Seaman, John
Begley, John Cleary, Peter Kirk, James
Ntzhugh, Michael Pnbula and Borough
Surveyor Gregory.
Health Officer Conry was the first witness
called for Mr.. Flynn. He said he had known
of the stream for about 30 years He de
scribed its course from the north end of
Main street to the Shenandoah Creek at the
hOuLlltb0ltll VI llllllA VI Llt DhIOuRus
Mr.. Schalck entered an objection against
Mr., Flynn's counsel trying to prove that
large quantities of filth and other refuse was
deposited from time to time by people living
along the stream into the stream, thereby
creating a nuisance iniuring and destroying
the property of the complainant and the life
and health of the people living in the I'M
mediate vicinity. Mr.. Schalck grounds for
tba fl,iaatip,, Iat ba q,
natural and public one and it was immateral
whether private parties were draining into
the stream. Even if true, he said, the bor-
ough would not be responsible and would not
justify the erection of the stone wall across
the stream. Mr. Schalck's objections Of
this character were frequent during the
hearing. They were reserved for decision by
the court.
Mr.. Conry said he had reported a nuisance
on Mr.. Robbins property arising from the
creek not bing properly covered in some
places. He said about one-fourth the prop
critics Of the borough were connected with
the stream and the condition of Mr.. Flynn $
cellar was such that he did not see how the
family stood it so long He admitted on
cross-e examination that the first time he
ordered the use of disinfectants in the cellar
was sometime last summer Mr.. Conry
caused some interest by saying that he saw
fish taken from the stream near the place
where the electric light house now stands
but that was in 1866 or 1867. 4 question by
Mr.. Whalen as to whether there is any fish
in the stream now occasOned some laughter
Mr.. Schalck spent some time in elcting from
the witness evidence to show that the condi-
tions in the borough had changed very
materially since 1866. Mr.. Conry admitted
that if the stream was properly covered so as
to be air tight there would be no offensive
odOrs and that has been done by many of the
property owners along the stream. Com
plants have also been made Of OdOrs arising
at places where surface water from the streets
run into the stream.
Mr.. Schalck objected to the plaintiff try
ing to show that at little cost the borough
could abate the nuisance on the Flynn prop
erty and turn the stream from it altogether
by putting in sewerage on Centre street from
Peach alley to limerick street and south on
the latter street. Mr.. Schalck said that was
a mere matter of speculation and had moth
ing to do with the case. He said the bor-
ough officials are not compelled to construct
such thing in order to relieve Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Conry said such plan was feasible.
John Robbins was the next witnesses and
he testified that the closets of several houses
owned by him in the square bounded by
Lloyd, White and Coal streets and Plum
alley are located over the creek and all the
properties are drained into it. He said he
never made application to the borough to
drain into the creek, but took the liberty be-
cause many others had done it, He said the
borough officials found fault with the place
and compelled him to wall up and cover the
creek and when he asked whether il would
be better to put the closets at the side, or
over the creek, the officials told him it didn't
matter, but they supposed the latter would
be the best plan and he did it.
Mr.. Schalck said any such instructions by
borough OIL -ials would not affect the case.
Mr.. Robbins said he did not ask permission
to put the closets over the creek, nor was he
directed 10 do So, but his recollection was
that the Chief Burgess told him it would be
better to do so. Mr.. Robbins also said that
he was part owner Of "a sewer line draining
several properties east of Main street on
Centre and the line connects with the creek
at Peach alley. He said the creek was an
absolute necessity in the eastern part of the
town for drainage and that if all individuals
kept the stream covered in their respective
properties and the bonugh would put in
traps at the surface drainage inlets there
would be no complaint
William Niswender was the third and last
witness of the day. He testified 10 owning
the properties at the southwestern and north
western corners of Main and Coal streets aud
they are connected with the creek by
sewerage line he laid along West Coal street
and several properties between Coal and
Lloyd streets are connected with the line.
@. How did you originally come to con-
meet your sewerage with this creek p
The question was objected to by Mr.
schalck as immaterial and irrelevant, ON the
ground that the hOrough could not ma a fIacted