The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-08-13
ANSWERS FILED TO
D. 4 H. PETITION
TroIly Companies Deny That the Cross.
sing is Being UnIawfuIIy Used.
ACTING WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS

Carving Passengers Over the
Tracks of the Plaintiff Affidavit of
General Manager Frank siiIimnn
Accompanies the Answers.
The officers of the Scranton and
Pittston Traction company and the
the Lackawanna Street Railway COM
pany yesterday took steps to oppose
the petition presented to the court last
week by the Delaware and Hudson
Canal company asking the court to
compel these companies to take up d
frog by means of which the trolley
road crossed the tracks of the Della
ware and Hudson company at Wyom"
ing street, Moosic.
After the petition was filed the Dela-
ware and Hudson officials had the OBJ
noxious frog taken out and then asked
permission to withdraw the petition.
Next Wednesday was fixed for the
argument of the matter, and yesterday
the two trolley companies filed their
answer to the Delaware and Hudson
companys petition. 1t is as follows:
The Lackawanna Street Railway com
phny and the Scranton and Pittston
| Traction company, the defendants above
named in answer to the petition of the
| plaintiff says:
First-That the Scranton Railway COM
| pany is the lessee of their railway for the
| term of fifty years and that said railway
| company has the exclusive operation of
| the same and that they are Informed
| and believe that said railway company
is not now and never has operated said
| road over the crossing at Wyoming street
| N N rd of no
| granted in this case, neither does 1t in
| tend or threaten so to do.
| Second-That said crossing Is in the
| pubic highway placed and kept there
with the consent of the supervisors of
| Lackawanna township.
| Third-That said crossing does not in
any manner interfere with the use of the
| highway by the public.
PUT IN AT GREAT COST.
Fourth-That said crossing was made
| and put in at great cost and expense to
| wit, the sum of $500, by reason of max
| ing 1t according to the design and putting
it in to the approval Of the plaintiff,
whereas or ordinarily put in and used
| would have cost not above $500.
Sixth-That by reason of the danger to
| the travelling public the defendants were
by injunction prohibited from operating
said road in carrying passengers over said
crossing.
Seventh-That the defendants, by their
| lessees, are not now nor do they intend
| or threaten to operate their road nor con-
| vey passengers over said crossing. The
road is operated from Scranton to the
said crossing, about six miles and return
| as IL that were a separate road, passen-
| gers alighting from the cars walking
across the plaintiffs tracks at the cross
ing and taking the cars on the other side
of the tracks, the cars on that side of the
tracks running from the crossing to Pitts
ton, about five miles and return, as If II
were a separate road.
Eighth-That the only use intended to
be made of the said crossing is to facil-
itate them in dragging new cars or dis
abled or worn out cars or wreck cars on
the highway across the tracks of the
plaintiff.
Ninth-That the cars taken over said
crossing on July l and were empty cars
| Tenth-That the car run over said
| crossing on July IS was run upon the
crossing by accident and to prevent 9
severe accident and that alone, the motor
man ran the car over the crossing.
Eleventh-That 1t has thus far been i'm
possible for the defendants by any Other
route to avoid having its road operated
so as to run it's cars from Scranton tC
Pittston without compelling its passen
gers to walk across the tracks of thu
plaintiff at Wyoming street in Moosit
for the reasons (a) that 1t does not have
the right of eminent domain; (b) that 1
has been unable TO purchase or secure th'
right from property holders to construc
its road through their properties or OF
the roads or streets adjoining the same.
Twelfth-That the mandate of the Su
preme court does not require the remov
ing of the crossing.
cIrppI rNrENrrrhr ANcuEP
In addition to the above the follow
ing supplemental answer was filed:
/. That on the 30th day of July, 1897
at a. m, the plaintiff and defendant
appeared before his honor, Judge Gun
ster, in Chambers. for hearing and ad
judication of the matters contained In tn
petition of the plaintiff.
q That the hearing was on motion o
the defendants regularly continued unit
the 18th of August, 1897.
g. That on Sunday, sth of August, 1S9I
| the plaintiff unlawfuily took the lay
into It's own hands and adjudicated tn
, case and by force and arms tore up an
threw out the tracks of the defendant
at the crossing at Wyoming street, in tn
: village of Moosic, while the proceedin
} to adjudicate and determine the respeC
tive rights of the parties as to the sal
: tracks were pending and undetermine
by the court.
4. That the defendants have the rigf
to have their legal rights in the premise
D adjudicated by the courts of this con
{ monwealth and therefore resist and OF
= pose the motion of the plaintiff to di:
continue or dismiss their petition.
The defendants therefore pray:
> /. That their legal and equitable right
. may be adjudicated by the courts of TIL
. commonwealth and that the plaintiff ma
Z not be permitted to discontinue or di!
miss its petition In this case.
2. That the plaintiff by order of tn
court may be compelled to replace tn
tracks as they were when they institute
these proceedings.
e g. That after hearing it may be dt
creed that the defendants have the rigl
to keep the said tracks at Wyomin
= street at Moosic for the purpose OF hau
!, ing new, disabled or worn out cars will
n out passengers or wreck cars over II
n same by horse power.
h 4. That they may have such other ar
further relief as the case may requil
and to the court may seem meet.
e OTHER PAPERS.
The permission of the supervisors
Lackawanna township to use the cross
ing and the affidavit OF General Manas
: er Frank Silliman, of the Scranton Raj
|. way company, concerning the necessit
4 of using the crossing for the company