Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1899-03-24
THE DEFENDANTS ANSWERS
GrOton Bridge Company ana
Town of BrattleborO

.CIoim They Were Not Responsible
for Delay In Building Main street
Bridge.
The Groton Bridge company and the Sc
lectmen of Brattleboro have prepared tneir
answers to the bill of complaint OF Ihe
Brattleboro Street Railroad company, they
| being the defendants in suit brought by
| the railroad company last December 10 re-
cover $1,000 damages for the delay III coih-
pleting the iron bridge across milestone
! brook at Main street. The answers, drawn
! M by Haskns & Schwenk, solicitors
for the defendants, are voluminous, COM
prising u pages of legal note paper, type
written.
The railroad company stated that it be-
lieved the selectmen and the bridge com
pany were negligent in the performance OF
! their duty, that they used improper mate
rial. employed incompetent men, ETC., that
the selectmen were negligent in not push
ing the work by compelling the bridge
company to carry out its contract in bust
nesslke manner, and that by reason OF
such neglect the railroad company's busi-
ness was greatly damaged.
The answer of the selectmen embraces
at the beginning the entire contract OF the
town of Brattleboro, the village OF Brat
| tleboro and the selectmen with the Street
Railroad company, and AYERS that other
| than as therein stated no further or great
er rights to use the streets, highways and
bridge have ever been granted TO the rail-
road company nor have they been acquired
| in any manner whatever. 1t also AYERS
that under that agreement the rights as
granted to the company are in no respect
exclusive to said company nor greater or
paramount to, but simply co-eXtensive
with the rights and privileges of all and
every of the inhabitants of this and every
other state to use for passing and re pass
! ing on foot and with carriages and teams
"aong, through and over the same"
The selectmen aver that the abutments
for the bridge were not fully erected and
the stone work completed on the day named
| in the contract, but that the failure of the
contractors to complete their contract on
! that day was in no manner due to any act
| or omission of the town of Brattleboro or
! its selectmen, nor was such claim ever
made by the contractors. The delay was
! for causes and circumstances that arose
| during the prosecution of said work, abso-
| lutely and entirely beyond their control,
as subsequently appeared before disinter-
ested arbitrator, mutually chosen to deter
| of Brattleboro, its selectmen, and said
! Ward Il Douglas, contractors"
The selectmen aver that the contract
with the bridge company was that they
should have the bridge ready for travel
within 40 days from the date when the
stone abutments we're ready to receive the
bridge. The abutments were not ready
until Sept. l. Owing to the fact that
circus company was advertised to exhibit
on Sept. II, the annual exhibition of the
| Valley Fair Association was advertised for
! Sept. % and 20, the defendants were
DESTROYS of accommodating the railroad
company in running its cars the entire
| length of its line so as to avoid transferring
| at the bridge the passengers which it was
expected the railroad would carry, large
numbers both to the circus and the Valley
| Fair exhibition at large profit, the select
men made another contract with the bridge
company by the terms of which the com
pany should begin laying the bridge Oct.
| 3, the company agreeing to construct a
false work for the use of the railroad COM
pany.
| The bridge company began work again
on Oct. according TO their contract, but
the contract was not completed until Dec.
| I, while it should have been completed
Nov. -. This, the selectmen claim, was
not due to any act or omission of the town
of Brattleboro, nor does the Groton Bridge
company claim that its failure to complete
the bridge on Nov. IS, was due, in any re-
spect, to any act or omission on the part of
the town OF Brattleboro, its selectmen, ser
wants or agents.
The selectmen further aver that all in
terruptions in the business of the railroad
81 NV l,oh hail
bridge, were common to all persons having
occasion for the use of a bridge across
| Milestone brook.
The answer of the Groton Bridge COM
pany denies that it was negligent in the
erection of the bridge, that it was not
equipped with suitable tools, that it did not
use suitable material and that its workmen
were inethcient. 1t says that after its
drawings of the bridge and material had
been approved by the engineer of the town
OF Brattleboro it contracted for the mate
rial with companies in Philadelphia, highly
reliable and responsible and with an nm.
questioned reputation for promptness and
despatch in the performance of all their
undertakings. This material was To he
shipped to Groton where it was To he
dressed and fitted and then shipped 10
Brattleboro.
The bridge company AYERS that by rea
son of causes and circumstances absolute.
ly beyond their control the material was
not shipped to Groton from Philadelpbia
with the promptness that might reasonably
De expected from such highly reliable con-
Germs, and that there were delays in trans
portation both between Philadelphia and
Groton and Groton and Brattleboro. which
the bridge company had no power or am.
thority to remedy. 1t AYERS that its shons
were run both day and night after the ma,
terial was received and that the fitted ma
terial was shipped to Brattleboro with all
possible promptness. "''
The bridge company, for further an
sWer, AYERS that the workmen in the roll
ing mills were unable to run full time in
July and August, 1898, on account of the
intensely hot weather and that thew (tbe
bridge company were unable to get their
orders filled elsewhere on account of the
large business in iron and steel which was
thrown upon the market at that time. dne
In no small degree to the war of the Init
ed States with the kingdom of Spain.