Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1900-01-25
SUPREME COURT MEETS.
Case OF Rutland Canadian Railroad VS.
Central Vermont Railway Argued
Man Fined For Selling Cider.

Montpelier, Jan. 23.-T'he January term
of the Supreme Court opened here this
morning with all the judges present.
Prayer was offered by Rev. DR.. Norman
Seaver.
The docket was called and a large num-
her of cases were set for hearing. THOSE
from Chittenden county set for hearing
are:
Samuel Howard VS.. Jed p. Clark ct al,
foreclosure; Writer'S for plaintiff, Powell
for Clarks, and Bingham for Teachout
Wills V. Farr apt, VS.. George c.
briggs estate. appeal from commission
ers; Powell and Powell Burnap for plaln-
tiff, Briggs, Hasel;on for defendant.
:. w. Russell VS. c. A. Rood, apt, as
sumpsit Russell for plaintiff. Ballard for
defendant.
, State VS.. Fayette l.. Taft, common sell
'er; States attorney for plaintiff Foster
and IIaselton for defendant.
State VS.. David Fl. McCuen. common
seller; states attorney for plaintiff. Cush-
man and Mower for defendant.
? The first Ease considered was the Rut-
land Canadian Railroad company VS.. the
Central Vermont Railway company, But
ton and Button for the petitioners.
The assault case of Laura Lavignc VS..
Patrick Lee. apt, was discontinued.
The first case considered was the Rut-
land-Canadian Railroad Co., vs.. the Cen
ira Vermont Railway CO., Button and
Button appeared for the petitioners and
&. NJ. Nilds for the defendant.
The petitioners statement TO the cour,
was in substance as follows:-
In this proce, ding comm issoners were
appointed under V. S, 1860, for the purpose
of hearing and de ermining the manner in
which the petitioner should lay its ira; ks
into the city of Burlington across The
lands of the petitionee, and unite its rail-
road with that of the Rutland RAILROAD
company.
The commissioners met at Buringt ton,
Sept. II, 1899. At that hearing the petit
toner asked the commission TO repor;
that the petitioner should lay its track
across the lands Of the pettionee ard UNI
der its main line to the north end of Lake
street, according to the location therefore
filed. This location showed an inGepcn-
dent line crossing under tho mfSn track
and across one side track of the petitionce
From this point the petitioner could reach
the yard of the Rutland railroad by "A
right of way granted 20 It by the city OF
burlington thorugh said Lake street by
this means securing an independent line
The petitioner dsclaimed any desire to
nave the commission fix any points oil
manner of crossing the railroad of the pc
titionee without fixing upon and reg ulat
ing the approaches 10 said points of cross
ing over the lands of the petitionee This
the commission refused to do and reported
TO the court that, in it's opinion, the es.
union or connection with the line of the
lpeitlonee over the lands of the retitionet
actually occupied and used for the pur.
poses of its incorporation. involved the
acquiring of right of way by the exec.
else Of the right of eminent domain ant
the fixing of land damages and that thos,
matters were not within the power of The
, commission to pass upon.
{ The commission reported this state oi
= lacts to this court, and at a special tern
f held at Huntington, Sept %, 1899. this
cpurt held that the view taken by tho
commission was correct and sent the mat
Ter back to the commission for further re
port. At that session there were presen
= Tart, {. j.. Rowell, j., Tyler, j., Start, j.
. and Watson, j.
The commissioners again met at Bur
= lineton on October 10 1892 The petitionc,
again presented the 50 me location to tn,
commissioners and requested that tn,
= commission fix upon the points and man
Y ner OF the actual crossings of the track.
{ OF the petitionee and claimed that the com
: mission, against petitioner ) objection, hat
{ no Jurisdiction to compel a joint use o.
Inc tracks and station of the petitionee II
r hei or the ind ependent crossing suggested
1 The commission, however, decided that 4
+ did have such jurisdiction and that Il wa,
competent for it to determine whether
, the petitioner should have the independ
cnt crossing desired. or should unite ant
NOllIl'Nl I'D iOiu VAIN tHdl OF the Det1
tionee.
-. Tine report of the commissioners state:
in substance that 1t is the opinion of tn,
commission that it has the powe err to de
eide. in view of all the circumstances
whether the petitioner shall have an indie
pendent crossing of the tracks of the petit
tionee Or whether IL shall unite and con
meet with the petitionee, using a portion
of tho tracks of the petitionee. Having
such power the commission has reporte,
that In its opinion the petitioner shoult
unite and connect with the petitionee un
der certain conditions fully set forth II
the report. The commission further To
ports thai in case this court holds tina
the commission erred in holding that 1
had the right TO determine between sucl
nm Independent crossing and such uniol
and connection then the indepcnden
crossing should be allowed under certain
conditions set forth in detail in said re
port
Your petitioner therefore submits tina