Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-04-22
THE DECISION.
Judge Wiswe|| Reports on
Gardiner-Pittston Bridge.
Finds Pittston Liable For S2289.39
With Interest From Aug. I, 1896.
Gardiner Must Bear Coss and Recover S62. so
as Pittston's Share.

Judge Andrew Il. WisWelI of ELS
worth, to whom was referred the Pitts.
tom Gardiner bridge matter to deter
mine the liability of Pittston for the
repairs and new iron structure to re-
place the part of the bridge damaged
and carried away by the freshet in
1856 has given his decision. His report
which has been filed with Clerk of
Courts Choate, decides that Pittston
must pay to Gardiner the sum of
S22S9.39 with interest from August |,
1896, and also the sum of $62.50 as her
share of the costs. The decision fol-
lows;
Ry virtue of the agreement of refer
ence between the city of Gardiner and
the town of Pittston. | gave due notice
to the parties to meet at the court
house at Augusta, within and for the
county of kennebeC, on Friday. March
10th, 1899. at ten o'clock in the fore
noon. at which time and place | met
the parties and their counsel and COM
menced a hearing of the case which
continued through that and the next
day and was then continued by ad-
journment to Saturday March 25th.
1899; and having heard the parties and
their several pleas, proofs. allegations
and arguments do hereby make this
my report in the premises.
In the freshet of the first part of
March. 1896, two spans of the bridge
between the city of Gardiner and the
town of Randolph We're carried away.
some of the piers of said bridge We're
entirely or partially destroyed and
other piers and other portions of the
superstructure were to some extent in
jured.
This bridge, originally a toll bridge
belonging to private corporation. was
and the town Of Pittston. as the latter
town existed before it's division by act
of the Legislature approved March 4,
1887. 1t having been purchased by these
two municipalities under the authority
of an act of the Legislature approved
March ). 1869 which purchase was COM
pleted on December 81, 1886 the city
and town paying therefor and owning
the same in the proportion of the city
of Gardiner IS per cent. and the town
of Pittston - per cent.
BY an act of the Legislature APP
proved March 4, 1857, a portion of the
territory Of the town of Pittston. to-
gether with the inhabitants thereof
was set off from Pittston and incor-
porated into a new town by the name
of West Pittston, the name being sub
changed by legislative enact
ment to Randolph. That portion Of the
former town Of Pittston that was in
corporated as a new town is contigu-
Gus to the east end of the aforesaid
bridge, in relation to which the act Of
incorporation of the new town contain
ed the following provisions: The care
and current expenses Of the Gardiner
and Pittston bridge, hitherto belong
ing to the town of PittstOn, shall be
borne by the town of West Pittston
Randolph. But in case Of total or
partial destruction, the liability for re-
building said bridge shall remain as If
no division had been made.
After the partial destruction OF the
bridge by the freshet of March. 1896.
the same was rebuilt by the city Of
Gardiner the town of Randolph. by
committee appointed for the purpose.
participated in the action and pro-
ceedings relative to such rebullclnS'
but the town of Pittston took no part
therein although duly notified and re-
quested to do so.
The matter in dispute referred TO me
by the statutory submission OF the
parties to which this report Is annexed,
is the claim of Gardiner against Plus
ton for a contribution of the latter
towns proportional part OF the eN-
nanse of such rebuilding. Various
questions. both of law and fact were
in controversy between the parties DIS
to which | make the following decls-
ions and findings:
LIST. | decide that by the terms OF
the act of the Legislature of 1863
authorizing the purchase Of the bridge
and bv the acceptance thereof by the
two municipalities and their action
hereunder in the purchase OF the
bridge. it subsequently became 'iie
duty of the two towns TO forever an
maintain the same in Sultaple cohui
ton for the purposes OF travel uliui
relieved Of such duty by leglsiatiNe
enactment. That it being the uutS Vi
the town of Pittston to contribute ~
due proportion towards the expense u
rabuilding said bridge that this clalh
RI recover such due proportion IS en-
forceable. 4
2nd. BY the provisions OF the act
of division. already quoted, the duty Oh
taking reasonable and proper care OF
tho bridge and Of paying the current
axnenses therefor devolved upon the
,,;+v of Gardiner and the town OF Kan
doinb II being claimed in defense 10
the maintenance of this claim that
those two towns had not performed
tbeir duty in this respect and that TINS
,aol;gence caused, or at least material
" contributed to, the partial destruc-
ZION If the bridge, find that two d
no niers. those known as the tol'
house pier and the middle pier, We're al
49,, t;ne of the destruction OF the
hridgn in need of substantial repairs
ard hat if the partial destruction OF
..o hr;dge had not taken place at the
-. af This freshet it would have peer
.,aaaes,rv within short time there
- tn have expended large sums oil
,,,onev in such repairs or repuiiuihs
hut am of the opinion that TINS con
5;tian If the piers named ana not ma
.s;o,,,, contribute to the destructloi
&c 20 nortion of the bridge; that sucl
- . ,.ara at the time sufficient Z
any ordinary freshet %