The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1903-04-02
COURTS OPINION.
Reviews the Testimony and Dis
misses Proceedings, Placing
Costs on County.
ORIGINAL PLAN TO STAND.


matter of grade crossing, at the
south end of the new river bridge
at Mifflinville, was handed down
on Thursday. The finding is quite
lengthy. 1t reviews all the testi-
mony and sets forth that no order
will be made that will in any way
effect the Judgment of the Court of
Quarter sessions entered on July
9TH, last. The proceedings are
dismissed, and the costs placed upon
the County.
Here are some of the reasons
given for disinissing the proceed
ings:
First-That it is the opinion of
the Court that the Act OF 1901
under which this proceeding was
instituted, has no application to the
facts here.
Second-That the action of the
viewers did not lay out a new or
additional public road, or establish
a new or additional grade or other
crossing of the tracks of the Rail-
road Company.
Third-That the judgment Of the
confirmation absolute of these pro-
ceedings July 7, 1902, became con
elusive unless appeal was duly
taken. The bridge was established
by that decree. The duty devolves
upon the county to build and keep
this and all other county bridges in
repair, as well as the approaches
thereto. The approach to the
bridge is part Of the bridge itself
The township road terminates
where the approach begins. 1t is
mistaken view urged on the part
of the petitioners that the southern
approach Of this bridge extends to
First street
Fourth. Being of the opinion
that the decree of the Court OF
Quarter Sessions confirming these
bridge proceedings is now conclu-
sive, and in view of what the County
Commissioners have done subse.
quent to that decree; that certain
rights of the contractor have at
tached; we should feel reluctant to
make any changes in the construc.
ton of this bridge, unless great
necessity required it, even if there
were a statute which expressly pro-
vided for such change.
Fitth-The evidence of Oscar
Thompson, witness produced by
the respondents, is cited in sale
opinion. Among the cross eXami
nation of said Thompson appears
the following:
Q. "You wouldn't consider tha
steel piers, placed upon the same
piers there, that they would be a.
strong as if the original piers hat
been brought up to that elevation
according to the practice and rule
of bridge construction ?"
Ans. :" I would think not. If
we're designing a bridge l woult
carry the stone work all the way t.
the top"
Q. "You would calculate tha
carrying the stone work up woult
be much better than steel piers ?"
Ans. Yes. sir"
Q. "And in carrying that ston
work up you would want to com
mence at the bottom to build it N
to the additional height ? "
Ans. Certainly.
Correspondents proposed chang
of this bridge, so as to accommodate
an overhead crossing, would great
ly enlarge the bridge, and increas
the cost of its construction. 1t ha
been held that where bridge
to be enlarged or improved, viewer
should be appointed as for a ney
bridge" 3 Delaware, I65.
The circumstances here show tha
the second section of the Act O
April II, I84S, would preser
another barrier to the accomplish
ment of such purpose; because tn
contractor and County Commission
ers have not agreed to the propose
alteration.