The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1903-04-09
DECISION BY JUDGE NEWOoMB. .

handed down his opinion in the
proceedings brought by the Ameri-
can Electric Light Company against
the Irondele Electric Light Com
pany. 1t is not victory for either
company. The Judge simply de-
fines the rights of the two COM
panies. He decides that where the
primary wires of the rival com
panies cross at nearly right angles
the distance between them should
be thirty inches, and that vertically
the wires should be four feet apart.
Where they run parallel they should
be four feet apart vertically. The
wires running parallel horizontally
or nearly so they should be sepa-
rated by distance of fifteen inches.
AT the poles the clearance should
be four feet.
1t can be seen by the above that
the judge agrees with neither COM
pany. The plaintiff contended for
separation of thirty.s six inches
where the wires crossed each other,
distance of fifteen inches hori-
zohtally and five feet at the poles.
The defendant proposed twenty
two inches vertical space where
lines cross each other or where
they parallel except near poles
where the space should be three feet.
The opinion in full would occupy
more space than IS available in this
issue. III part it is as follows:
Both plaintiff and defendant
companies have right to use the
streets, lanes aud alleys of the Town
of Bloomsbury for the purpose for
which they were incorporated.
The plaintiff companies have
prior location and therefore a su-
perior right and the defendant
must so construct and maintain its
lines and so occupy and use the
streets and highways under its
franchise as not to interfere with,
obstruct or hinder the plaintiffs in
the lawful exercise and enjoyment
OF their corporate rights and fran
chises in the construction, main
tainance and operation of their
works and lines.
THAT a decree should be made
fixing the minimum separation of
the rival lines where they are paral-
lei and at crossings in accordance
with the eighth, ninth and tenth
findings of fact.
THAT the injunction was proper
ly issued and SO far as it conforms
to the foregoing proceedings of fact
and conclusion Of law should be
made permanent.
The defendant should pay the
costs of proceeding.
Il can see nothing to be added
by way of discussion. The only
question of difficulty-indeed the
only matter in dispute-is how far
must the primary wires of rival
electric light companies be separat-
ed to prevent interference or dis
turbance between the two currents
by induction, and injury to property
and persons by accidental contact.
The witnesses differed substan.
tally. They were experts, and il
the facts involved are capable oI
demonstration, there ought to be
no ground of dispute. 1t amounts
to this, in my judgment, that their
testimony is largely a matter o.
theory derived no doubt in part
from actual experience and obser.
Walton. The agency with which
the PARTIES are dealing is highly
dangerous. So far as human
safety is concerned, l take it, the
courts are bound to resolve the
doubt in favor of the workmer
who keep the lines in repair. A,
to the separation required to keel
the wires out of range of induction
1t may be said with some con6denc,
that the distance cannot we'll b,
fixed, regardless of the inevitabl,
sagging and relaxing of wires tha
will occur in spite of great care ant
vigilance. The danger also of acci
dental contact from sagging de
pends to some extent upon the nor
NAL separation. Looking at tn
disputed question in all its aspects
/ feel constrained to believe tha
safety to both life and property lies
so to speak, somewhere betwee,
the distances contended tor by tn
opposing counsel, and have accord
!ino1y so found"