The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-04-11
PETITION is DISMISSED,
Court Will Not Appoint Viewers to
Condemn the Part Of Abingdon
Turnpike Within the City.

Judge II. NJ. Edwards yesterday filed
an opinion dismissing the petition for
the appointment OF viewers to con.
demn the portion of the Abingdon turn
pike which lies within the boundaries
of the city OF Scranton. In his opinion
he says:
Certain resident taxpayers OF the county filed
a petition on Oct. ~, 1909. praying Tor the con.
dcninaiion OF that part OF the Providence and
Abingdon Turnpike lying within the city OF
scranton. The proceedings are brought under
III writing were filed on hial! OF ,'tize,,s of
the county, Of the county commissioners and OF
the Northern boulevard company, objectiug To
me appointment Of viewers. The objection hg.
questions OF law cnly) tina, couIl be disposed of
now as well as on exceptions to the report OF
the viewers, we allowed the protests to be con.
n;dercd ns exceptio ions to the appointment Of
viewers. and in this way the rasr was argued
before the court in banc
Two exceptions present themselves 10, our ron.
sidrration:
tirst'-AttcT report OF viewers refusing con.
denInation is confirmed by the court. can the
taxpayers again proceed and ask for another
view, and can they continue 10 do rhis until
they secure favorable report! The mere state
'ncnt OF such a proposition proves it's upreaso,-
ablcness. ii this be done il would be pos.
'''iF pf H>luS UUe NltlBeNCe. 10 nave tnfPc
proceedings every year in our court. The fact
ttiat the record may be removed 10 The supreme
court would make very little difference, because
III case OF an adverse report Of viewers only tile
regularity OF the proceedings would be eonsid-
cred by the appellate tribunal
second~-lt one adverse report is final and COLI
elusive are the taxpayers without further rem
ed"g Is there 10 time in the iuturc in which
they can again move?
Between these two propositions there is mid.
die course. Witt, changed Condito4s we tan
see how Justice would b. sul,seryed by the ap
p"lntnent OF viewers in second proceeding 10
condemn Il turnpike. Communities change ia
many respects and new conditions arise. 1t
may be- that We have the power upon preliminary
proof of such chnng,N conditions to appoint nrs
viewers, but we axe unable to satisfy ourselves
that We have such authority. We are OF TIE
OPINION that the remedy OY the taxpayers is by
an appeal TO the legislature. An amendment to
the Act of 1857, providing that after the cxpira
lion 81, ssy. five years from the iral confrn,
ton Of an adverse report OF viewers, and ,p"n
proof Of new and different conditions the co,ut
may appoint viewers, etc.
Entertaining these views, We hold that tlc
petitioners are not entitled to the appo ntmenl
Of viewers as prayed for in the petition.
We consider that the execution OF the Northern
boulevard company is without merit, SO far as
the exception is based upon the allegation tina,
inc appointment OF viewers wOud be AN in.
hingcnien, on tlcir corporate rights as lessee,
OF the turnpike.
In order to have tile record il, proper Shape
let Ionnal exceptions be tiled lnnc pro time ,s
OF Nov, l2, 1860.
The petition to appoint viewers is dismissed
At III" cost OF Tie petitioners.