The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-08-20

Coon & Son, John E. Roche, director
of department Of public works and the
city of Scranton. 1t follows
The defendants now and at all times
hereafter, reserving to themselves all
benefit and advantage of exception which
can be had or taken to the many errors
and uncertainties and other imperfec-
tions in the plaintiffs bill of complaint
contained, for answer thereunto or unto
so much and such parts thereof as the
defendants are advised Is or are material
or necessary for it to make answer unto,
answering, says:
We deny that the plaintiff has the au-
thority to enter upon the streets of the
defendant, the city of Scranton, and so
use the same as to compel the de1endant,
the city of Scranton, to lay out large
sums of money to improve said streets,
or to cast any additional expense upon
the defendant, the city of Scranton, IN
improving said streets or laying pipes
therein for the benefit of the people OF
the said city Of Scranton.
We further deny the right of the de-
fendant to enter upon the streets and
highways of the city Of Scranton and
monopolize or so use the streets of the
city as to In anywise interfere with the
municipal improvements which the city
desires to make upon said streets, With
out first having permission of the au-
InOr1tlGS OIL lue Clly W SO oSSupS oe1iN
streets.
DENY AUTHORITY.
We deny the authrity claimed by the
plaintiff subsequent to the plaintiff ac-
cepting the terms Of the act Of 1874, to
enter upon the streets Cat that time
known as Stone avenue and Front
street,, and lay pipes thereon; said pipes
having been laid subsequent to the ac-
ceptance of the terms of the act of 1874
lot, xr,}t11 11n11f ryr1i
granted to the plaintiff by the defendant
to occupy the streets with its pipes. or
to enter upon said streets and lay the
pipes claimed to be now lawfully laid be-
meath the surface of said streets.
We further deny that said pipes de-
scribed in the third paragraph of plain
tiffs bill were carefully located or prop
erly located, said pipes being laid in
careless manner and located without re-
gard to street lines, running diagonaly
across said streets from a westerly to
an easterly direction at one point on said
Front street, and at another point run
ming from an easterly in a westerly di-
rection across said street, and at such
angles that so much of the said streets
are occupied by plaintiffs pipes that 1t is
impossible to pass down said street at
any point within it's entire width without
coming in contact with the pipes of the
plaintiff, thereby preventing the laying
or Stilu sewer, ic-ioSot0
their water pipe.
It is true that on or about the 25th day
of July the defendants, A. Fl. Coon and
Bolton G.. Coon, were constructing
sewer along the line of Front street un-
der contract with the defendant. the
city of Scranton. and under the SUPER
vision or direction of the director of pub
lie works. John T.. Roche. That the de-
fendant, the city of Scranton. had a law
full right to contract for the construc-
ton of said sewer with A. H. Coon and
his son, Bolton G. Coon, and that 1t is
necessary for the public good and the
health and enjoyment of the people re-
siding along the line of said sewer, and
directly on the line of Front street. on
which said sewer is being constructed, to
construct said sewer, in order that they
might he relieved of accumulations of
filth, said sewer being absolutely neces-
sary to carry of the accumulations of
filth In that locality and that the health
of the community through which said
sewer passed might not be jeopardized.
HAVE NOT INTERPRETED.
We deny that the city of Scranton, de-
fendant, or any of the other defendants.
have commenced interfering with said
pipes and endangering the same, but. on
the contrary, have requested the plaintiff
TO remove said pipes so that defendants
IUlBlL COllluue " CollSlTuCL lue scWcI III
accordance with the plans and specifica- |
tions along the line Of said street.
1t is true that the authorities Of the |
defendant, the city of Scranton, were no. |
titled that the plaintiff, the Scranton Gas
and Water company. would relocate or
move the pipes in question, providing that |
the plaintiff would be indemnified for the |
damage sustained in so doing.
We deny the right of the plaintiff the |
Scranton Gas and Water company, to |
impose terms or to demand indemnity for |
any damages that the plaintiff may sus-
tain by relocating water pipes in the |
streets of the city of Scranton, the de-
fendant, and submit that the control and |
management of the streets are vested in |
the director Of the department of public |
works and the city councils and city re-
Corder, and that no person can occupy |
said streets for private purposes without |
first having obtained from the city au-
thorities permission to occupy them, and |
that since the act of April Goth, 1874, the |
water pipes on the street known as Front |
street In the city of Scranton have been
placed there by the plaintiff. the Scran-
ton Gas and Water company, without the
permission of the authorities of the city
OF Scranton having been first obtained.
and the defendant the city of Scranton,
is not liable for any damage that the
plaintiff may sustain by reason of re-
locating said pipes in the streets.
We deny that the defendants, the city
of Scranton, or any of them, are threat
ening to destroy the pipes of the plain
tiff, or to render them dangerous to the
city and useless to the plaintiff, and
deny the right of the plaintiff to require
indemnifyng bonds before the defendant
can proceed to remove said pipes, bnt,
on the contrary, claim the right to COM
pei the plaintiff to place the water pipes
on Front street, at their own expense, in
such a location as may be designated by
the defendant, the city of Scranton, and
aver that In the event of the plaintiff re-
fusing to change or relocate said pipes,
that the city of Scranton is empowered
by its charter to remove said pipes,
causing as little injury as possible to the
property of the plaintiff, so that the work
as provided by ordinance, the building of
said sewer, may be completed with as lit
tie interruption as possible.
ACCEPTED THE ACT.
We deny that orators pipes were laid
In pursuance of the act approved March
10th, 1854, but contend that the same We're
laid In pursuance of the act approved
29th day of April 1874 which said act
the 18th day of January, 1892; said act |
authorizing only such use of the streets
by u water company as not to interfere
with any right the municipality might
have In said streets; and IL the construc-
tion OF water company's pipes interfere
with the building of a sewer on the said
streets, the water pipes must be removed
at the expense of the water company, In
order that the sewer can be built.
We deny that we are depriving or at
tempting to deprive the orator OF right