The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1903-07-23
ANOTHER BILL.
Grade Crossing to be Fought to
the Bitter End by Rail-
road Company.
Will Delay the Work.

LAT tiS ISuuSylNduld NdllI IOdti
Company proposes to fight to the
bitter end the grade crossing at the
river bridge at Mifflinville, was made
patent on Tuesday, when its at
torney Hon. H. NJ. Hinckley, of
Danville, and L. L. Waller of
Wilkes Barre, appeared at t h e
Court House and filed with Pro-
thono.ary Terwilliger a bill in
equity against the County Com
missioners, contractor c. H. REIN
ard, sub-contractor, the King
Bridge Company and the Super
visors Of Miffln township. With it
are presented the reasons why an
injunction restraining the construc.
tion ofthe bridge should be granted.
1t is extremely difficult to predict
at this time just what the outcome
of the matter will be. The County
Commissioners appear to be some
what reticent. About the only
thing that they give out is that they
will be ready when the time arrives.
The reasons, as filed by the rail-
road company's solicitors are as
follows:
I THAT it is a corporation of
the state OF Pennsylvania owning
and for twenty years has been and
now is operating a railroad upon
the south shore of the Susquehanna
River and passing through the viii
lage Of Mifflinville in Miflln town
ship and County of Columbia afore-
said.
2. That William Bogert, George
w. Sterner and w. H. Fisher are
Commissioners OF Columbia county;
that Charles Reimard is contractor
with said Commissioners and the
King Bridge Company is sub-con-
tractor with said Reimard, and are
engaged in the construction Of an
iron and steel highway bridge sup
ported BY stone abutments and piers
across the Susquehanna river at
said village Of Mifflinville, and that
said Samuel Knecht and William J.
Hosler are supervisors of the afore-
said township, of Mifilin, OH which
the south end of said bridge is To-
Gated.
3. That the wing walls of the
south sbutment Of said highway
bridge approach to within three
feet of the rails of the plaintiff S
railroad siding and within less than
thirty feet of the rails of the main
track Of the plaintiff railroad.
4. That defendants by the plans
and specifications of said structure,
relying upon the report of viewers
confirmed by the Court of Quarter
Sessions, 9TH July, 1902, and by
their public declarations, propose
and intend to establish and con-
struct said bridge with highway
approach thereto from the south, III
such manner that the said highway
will cross plaintiffs railroad al
grade, at place where no crossing
now exists or has ever existed
That such proposed grade crossing
will be a new crossing established
June I, 1902, on which date the
Act of June 7. 1901, became opera
tive.
s. That by the terms of the Act
of 9TH Of June, 1901, P. l.. 53I, the
crossing at grade of highways BY
railroads or railroads by highways
is peremptorily and universally
prohibited, except in the single in
stance specifically described therein
6. That such proposed grade
crossing has not been permitted by
the Court of Common Pleas under
the Act of June 7, 1901, P. L, 53I
7. That said proposed grade
crossing is at the foot of hill and
: across the. throat of plaintiff rail
road yard. where the shifting Of
trains and drilling of cars keep
t said track in more frequent use ant
, close upon the railroad station ant
. water tank, and if constructed
would be very dangerous to th'
public whether travelling upon tn
highway or upon this portion of tn
railroad over which the pas s-enge
and more than twenty freight train
of very great length pass daily.
e 6. That the very place of sai'
a proposed grade crossing, the hig1
4 ground. along whose base at tn
=, edge of the river bank plaintiff
. railroad IS laid, affords a most ad
J. vantageous opportunity ior all over
e head crossing TO the level of tn
r village street which is about eigh
v teen feet higher than the plaintiff
r railroad tracks and I7o feet distan
}. therefrom across the village com