Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1898-12-16
1n1nNor1oN ORDER ISSUED
Restraining the Bra'ueboro selrc'me"
from Paying the Groton Bridge Conn
many --- BrattIeboro street Hallway
Conn.nv claims $1,000 Damages.

Restraining the Brattleboro selrctmeh
from Paying the Groton Bridge Conn
many BrattIebOro street Halfway
company Claims $1,000 Damages
The action of the Brattleboro Street
Railway company against the Groton
Bridge company and w. II. Vinton, E. II.
Putnam and f. F. Gleason, representing
the town of Bratt!eboro, which was mem
toned in The Phoenix Of Nov. % as being
a possibility, has become a reality. Inc
directors of the railroad company, through
their president, +. l.. Waterman, as sollc-
itor. have petitioned the court of chancery
for an order of Injunction enioining the
town Of Brattleboro and its officers from
paying the bridge company and enlolnlng
the bridge company from receiving from
the town and its officers a greater amount
of money due the bridge company under us
contract with the town, than Will leave
$1,000 of said debt in the hands OF the
town. Judge j. NJ. Tyler, chancellor, has
granted the petition, and when the select
men settle with the bridge company they
will hold back $1,000 to be retained until
the next March term of county court, when
the case will probably be heard.
The railroad company states in its petit
ton that the population of Brattleboro IS
so distributed along and near It's line OF
road that it is very essential to It's pr0hl-
able operation that the cars should run
continually from end to end without
break, interruption or transfer, especially
at the bridge. 1t says that soon after the
making of the contracts with the bridge
company and the granite company the hrm
which was to build the abutments and the
bridge company began preparations for the
! r.. . 1,r.fr IL
though the abutments were completed and
ready for the iron about oct. the bridge
! company did not complete its contract as
! it should have done, and that during a
| large part of the time since the work was
| begun upon the abutments the street rail-
road company has been prevented from
| crossing on account of the unfinished con-
! dition of the bridge and has been com
! peled TO stop its cars and transfer its pas
| sengers, and bv reason thereof has lost
! large amount Of business which il afiirms II
| would have had that its business has
greatly deprecated by reason of the inter
! ruption, that its profits and income have
been greatly lessened, that its passenger
traffic has been affected, that its cars have
| been injured by being compelled to remain
| exposed to the weather, that it has been
compelled to pay large sums of money TOR
| extra help and has been put to great eX-
pense By not being allowed to transfer its
snow pillow across the bridge for use at each
| end OF the road The damage in the opin-
ion of the directors is not less than $1,000.
The railroad company, according to the
petition, believes that the bridge company
and the selectmen did not use due dill
gence in the performance Of their contract,
but were negligent aud careless OF the
rights of the railroad company and unduly
and illegally interrupted the traffic on its
road To just what extent the bridge
company is to blame and TO what extent
the selectmen are to blame the railroad
company is unable to determine, but it be-
lieves and alleges that the company, at
least, was grossly negligent, that 1t did not
begin work as early as 1t ought, that it was
not equipped with sufficient and suitable
tools and appliances, that ii did not have
and use suitable and properly made and
fitted material, that 1t did not perform its
contract in a workmanike manner, that
it did not have an efficient and competent
superintendent in charge OF the work OF
sufficient and competent help, that it stop
ped work from time to time on account OF
delay in having material on the ground
that it was negligent in fitting and prepar-
ing the bridge for the use of the railroad
SO that the railroad company was compel
led TO lay out money in making the con
nections, and that while they are informed
that the selectmen claim that the bridge
company was wholly at fault and the bridg,
company claims that IL was hindered bl
the selectmen, it (the railroad company,
AYERS that the town, by the selectmen, wa:
negligent in not pushing the work by com
pelling the company to carry out its con
tract in a businesslike manner.
In the nature of the case the railroad
company is not able to bring a suit at Law
and attach the money by trustee process
so petition in chancery was made as the
railroad company "believes the town il
about 10 settle with the bridge company