The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1903-09-03
INJUNCTION GRANTED
On Application Of Pennsylvania
Railroad Company work
on MifflinVille Bridge
will Stop.
OPINION OF COURT.

COuIl, Wueu luS Stluity plONSSuihSS
in the Mifflinville bridge matter
were taken up at two o'clock Mon
day afternoon. His honor r. X.
Little, presided aud beside him on
the bench were his associates Fox
and Krickbaum.
L., +. Waller, Esq, counsel for
the Pennsylvania Railroad Com
pany, applied to the court for a
preliminary injunction to restrain
the work at the bridge.
To this application the County
Commissioner solicitor, ]. Boyd
Robson, vigorously objected. He
claimed that the move was entirely
out of order, and not i'll accordance
with the rules of the court, There
have been no grounds laid for the
application until to-day" said Mr..
| Robson, "and we are not prepared
to resist the application. " Con-
tinuing he said, Let the Court set
time for a hearing i'll the matter
and we will produce evidence to
| resist this application, and we will
meet tiem, we will show that they
have no right on the premises, and
that they are trespassers. " Mr..
Robson waxed warm in his re-
marks, and presented several
authorities in fortifoation OF his
claim.
The order of Court made last
week setting aside Monday August
Al, as the time for hearing the argu-
ment in the matter was read by Mr..
Waller, after which the Court or
dered the parties to proceed. Mr..
Waller then read the plaintiff S
statement, together with the affi-
davits in substantietion thereof.
l.Mr. Robson again objected to which
the Court replied, "Mr. Robson,
are you surprised at anything that
has been done here to-day?' Il
aim not surprised, returned Mr..
Robson, "only l fail to see how a
temporary injunction can be granted
before we have been given an op-
portunity to be heard. The
Court then took the papers and OH
Tuesday filed the following opinion
granting the injunction.
OPINION OF .TaE COURT.
The Supreme Court have said,
among other things in reference to
the grade crossing mentioned in
these proceedings: Under the con-
ceded facts the crossing involved in
this controversy is a new grade
| crossing, and as such is prohibited
by the act of 1901" x = *
THE Court of Common Pleas is
authorized under section four to
permit a grade crossings under
certain conditions. But this juris-
diction must be exercised in the
mode pointed out by the Act and is
exclusive. There is no substitute
for it, either in manner or form.
x X i; i X X The discretion
Of the Common Pleas under the
statute can only be exercised in a
! direct proceeding for that purpose. "
'"In the absence of evidence, the
answer must be taken for true. "
IL Hav. 2II.
'In equity the answer of the de-
fendant if responsive to the bill, is
conclusive, unless overcome by the
testimony of two creditable wit
nesses, or the testimony of one
witness, and such corroborative
facts or circumstances, as are equal
to the testimony of a witness. y"
Under these authorities, the ex'
parte affidavits filed by complain
ants, subsequent to the filing Of
answers by tb4 defendants, have
not been considered.
The answers filed are claimed by
the defendants to be fully respon.
sive to the facts averred i'll the bill,
and to deny every equity therein
stated.
An inspection of the answers OF
the County Commissioners, and
Supervisors, fails to disclose any
averment, tending to assure the
complainants, in substance, that
they or the municipalities which
they respectfully represent, do moi
intend to construct a grade cross
ing of the tracks Of plaintiffs rail-
road, without first applying to tta
Court of Common Pleas, for per
| mission to have grade crossing
constructed under the provision o
section a, Act of 1901, P. L. 53I
1t is important to the public anc
all interests concerned, that hear
ing should be had.
And now September I, 1908, tho
above case having been heard or
bill and affidavits, on motion o
COUNCIL for Dla;ntiff. it is ordered