Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-05-06
TIE OAkv|LLE BRIDGE.
City's Appeal Heard in the Su-
 perior Court To-Day

Judge Wheeler Reserved His Decision
 A Sensational Divorce Case Fol
 lowed the Arguments on the Bridge
 Question.
 The appeal of the city from the de- cision of the railroad commissioners In the Oakville trolley case came be- fore Judge Ralph Wheeler in the su- perior court to-day. Attorneys kel- logg and O'Neill appeared for the city and Judge Burpee and Attorney Banks for the Connecticut Railway and Lighting company. The facts in the case are: The trolley company de- sired to extend it's system to Water town by running its tracks under the Oakville railroad trestle and without widening the passway under the same. The selectmen and later the board of aldermen objected to this. The trestle | abutments stand about thirty feet on the highway. If the company would proceed at it's own expense to remove these the city would allow the com pany to build it's tracks as 1t desired, 1 but the company at first refused to do this, claiming it is the duty of the city to remove all obstructions upon its highways. The company appealed the matter to the board of railroad commissioners The hearing before that board was held some time ago and the result was favorable to the com pany. 1t was given permission toI proceed with its proposed extension. The city thereupon appealed to the su- perior court from that decision and the case was to have been heard at the February term of the superior court held here, but at the last moment 1tl was withdrawn, the company agree ing to pay 55 per cent of the costs of the litigation against the Consolidated Railroad company for the removal of the trestle abutments off the highway. The situation looked all right then, but another turn seized the company and it withdrew from its agreement. The case then took its previous stand ing on the court docket, hence it was the first matter heard at this term of the court
 This morning Judge Burpee filed a motion to throw the whole business out of court on the grounds that the court had no Jurisdiction in the matter. He claimed that the court was neither bound by duty nor allowed by law to hear the case, providing that the rail- road commissioners had acted within the provisions of the statute, and he maintained it had.
 Replying, MT O.Neill said there was no appeal from the material or mode of construction of the proposed exten- sion, but the city did appeal from the striking out of the conditions laid down, first by the selectmen and later by itself, upon which the extension should proceed. The city agreed to the extension, but it did not want to pay the expenses of widening the high way for the company by removing the trestle abutments. Has not the com- munity the right to say to this com pany, you shall not crowd the highway and was not that a proper condition for the city to lay down? asked MT O'Neill No one has the right to crowd or obstruct the highway, and the troll ley track would be a nuisance and an obstruction on this highway unless the abutments of the trestle were removed. The city has been put to great expense by this trolley company. A bridge on Bank street cost 1t $15,000 or $2O,oo0 and another bridge on South Main street cost about the same. These bridges were necessary because the trolley tracks crowded and obstructed the old bridges, said MT ONeill.
 The placing of a light at the trestle was fair and proper condition, he thought. That had nothing to do with the construction of the extension. MT O'Neill went into all of the condi- tions in detail. The plans acted upon by the board of selectmen and appeal ed from by the company were not the plans approved by the railroad commits sioners. The plans which were acted upon by the board of aldermen were not appealed from, but were the plans which were approved by the commits sioners. MT O'Neill doubted if the commissioners had authority to take away from any community its high ways and bridges without compensa- tion. These belong to the community, are laid out and built by the taxpay CTS and maintained by them. If the con- missioners, then, acted illegally, and in
 
 not acted upon the plans that were ap- pealed from by the company, had not the court authority to hear this ques- tion.' The commissioners, he thought, did not see their duty at all in the question. They acted simply upon the proposed plan of construction, not upon the conditions laid down by the city upon which the extension could be laid It was very strange to him if the commissioners could dictate to a municipality how 1t should regulate its street traffic. He had never heard of an outsider attempting any such idea until the trolley company tried it. Decision was reserved.
 Mayor Kilduff was very interested 1 spectator.
 The case of Ida H. vs Zacariah F. Stauffer occupied Judge Wheeler's at l tention this afternoon. This is a con- tested divorce ease in which the Dlaiu-