The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-07-10

If Judge Kelly reviews all the cases
cited to him by the lawyers who yes
terday argued the Rocky Glen injunc-
tion case. he will take no vacation this
summer. it is safe to say
Ever since the proceedings were an
ticlpated the attorneys on both sides
have been thumbing the books In
search of utterances and decisions that
would favor their particular side of the
case. on the plaintiffs side were Major
Everett Warren and l.. G.. Newcomb.
ON the defendants side. II. a. Fuller
of Wilkes Barre; Read e. Petit, Of
Philadelphia. represented by Mr.. Gill:
Joseph O'Brien, j. T.. Burr and Hon
NJ. T.. Mcdonald. Of this city.
That they had thumbed not unavail-
ingly was attested by the raft of cases
cited in the several briefs, or orally
cited during the arguments. 1t seemed
that every legal authority from Solo
mon to Gildea was quoted.
The arguments occupied practically
the whole day. Major Warren spoke
first for the plaintiff. He was followed
by Mr.. Fuller and Mr.. Gill for the de-
fense. and Mr.. Newcomb closed for the
plaintiff.
Major Warren and Mr.. Newcomb
strove to show from the evidence that
the Scranton and Northeastern Rail
road company is in reality passenger
railway company and that it is only
masqucrading as a railroad company
that it may exercise the right of emf
nent domain, which is not given to
street railway companies.
LINE NOT FOLLOWED.
al.
while it was true that the defendant
| company had line laid out across the
| tract in question before it was dedi-
| Gated by the plaintiff company as a
| reservoir, this line was not followed as
| originally adopted, and consequently
the claim of priority of seizure ad-
vanced by the railroad company must
! fall.
Messrs. Fuller and Gill. in answer to
| the attack on the bona-fides of the de-
fendant company, said that nowhere
! In the evidence was it shown that the
Scranton and Northeastern or it's Wyo-
ming valley extension, the Central Val
ley road. proposed 10 connect with any
street railway. Mr.. Fuller said in his
address: I'VE pledge. Your Honor, in
| open court that we have no intention
tn connect with the Connell Park and
| Speedway company in Scranton. or the
Wilkes Barre street Railway company
in Wilkes Barre. as is alleged"
AS to the character of the Scranton
! and Northeastern road there could be
no doubt, they argued. a street rail-
| way, it was contended, is built for the
most part longitudinally on streets
makes frequent stops to take on and
| let off passengers and carries no
| freight. The Scranton and Northeast
Crn road will not only not occupy any
| streets lOngitudinall% but nearly the
! whole length of its route 1t will pass
on a private thoroughfare through
rural lands away from inhabited
portions of the municipalities. 1t will
rot follow the contour of the country as
does a street railway, put instead vii
avoid grades and curves al "A great cX.
pense for cutting and filling. Its cars
will not stop at street crossings and
some Of its trains will make no stops
at all between terminals.
PREFER ELECTRICITY.
cit would be idle for us to concca
our preference for electricity as mo-
tive power" Mr. Fuller said but We
as tn whether or not we will make
use of it. If it is legal for us to use
electricity under our charter We will
likely use it,"
The street railway act of 1889. it wa.
pointed out, restricted n company tC
the use of power other than steam 10
comotivc. The steam railroad act %
1868 does not prohibit the use of any
| LIT Of I IL 4,
that electricity or any other power car
be used. If this Interpretation of tn,
law is not found incorrect the defend
ant company will use electricity, il
part. at least, as its motive power.
IN this connection. Mr.. Fuller, afte
remarkine that it was n pleasure I,
be abln 10 go to the fountain hea'
Of legal knowledge and jurisprudence
} for support of his contention. quotet
from Major Warren's paper book, il
the case of Potter against the Scranton
Railway company. n claim made b.
the major that railway compan,
; could make use of any motive poWe
; not prohibited i'm its charter. "Majo
Warren was then, as 7 believe he /
now, the attorney for the Scranton
Railway company" Mr. Fuller said.
Fuller claimed, was nothing more o
less than a bit of common parlanc
used in contradstinction of a stree
railway. and the law does not mea
, that y steam railroad charter restrict
the company 10 the use of steam.
IT'S PRIMAL PURPOSE.
Mr.. Gill contended to the court
r was absolutely clear that the Rock
Glen Water company had started on
with the primal and express purpos
of blocking the new railroad enterpris,
This being the case, he said, the coul
should say to the water company: 81
q you can stop the railroad company q
4, law, go do it, but we cannot interpos
the hand of equity to help YOU EieC
them If you can and If not sue thel
for damages"
Under recent decision Of the 81
preme court, quoted by Mr.. Gill.
was argued that the line of the ori
inally adopted route could be deyiatt
from without affecting the priority
: the entrance on the land in questio
r providing the deviation did not eau
} the taking of land that was absolute
necessary to the construction IF Il
resrvoir. The act of 1Si9 wab al,
i quoted to show that the engineers c.
deviate from the adopted line IL sue
Is found to be expedient,
= Judge Kelley asked If Mr. Gill he
that the engineers could do this wit
y out authority from the board of d
. rectors. Mr. Gill replied in the aGirr
4 ative, qualifying his answer howev
81 by saying that the act of the engi
GERS would later have TO be ratlh,
VI by the board.