Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1904-10-13

The preliminary hearing of the in
junction cases of the d. l.. q w. rail
road and the Danville and bloomsbury
Street Railway Company was end d
Saturday morning at 1926 O'Clock,
when Judge Little adjourned court
| until Friday next at $50 a. m. At
| that time the argument of the cases
| will be taken up 1t would have been
impossible to finish the argument by
noon Saturday so the continuance be-
/ came necessary.
Judge Koch, who was on the stand
at the time of adjournment Friday af
! ternoon, was the first witness. Speak
ing of the proportionate risks Of an
overhead and grade crossing, he said
that at a grade crossing the locomotive
engineer, crossing wstchman. trolley
motorman and conductor all are on
guard and safety devices minimize any
possible danger. On an overhead cross
ing there is absolutely nothing to ov-
ercome the hume rous mechanical fail
ures that may result in fatalities.
The examination of the wiCness was
conducted by Ex-senator Herring and
Judge Willard carried on the cross eX-
animation. To try to show that the
witness. who is a member of the con-
| struction company working on the
| trolley line, is directly interested IN
the case In order TO question the credi-
Dility of his testimony the attorney
for the railroad company asked how
much of an interest witness has aud
Lawyer Scarlet amused the spectators
in court by his statment, when wit
ness said he has one-fourth interest.
that well then your oredibility is
only affected one fourth. I"
f. @. Angle, president of the troll
ley company, was called to produce
the minute book of the DanviIle and
Riverside company, containing record
of the sale of the rights of that COM
pany to the Dauville and Bloomsbury
company. Mr.. Scarlet objected to the
question asked the witness as to how
many shares he and Mr.. Pascoe have
in the stock of the trolley company.
Shortly after leaving the stand MI.
Angle was recalled to identify copies
of letters written him by the ID. L. &
W. people, which the RAILROAD counsel
offered as evidence. On being cross ex-
amined the witness said he gave the
letters to the clerk of the trolley COM
pany and could not say whether Mr..
PascOe saw them.
Street Commissioner Miller was call
ed to describe the location of the wat
er main on Mill street near the mid
die of that thoroughfare and five feet
below the surface, the trolley people
contending that the foundations of the
proposed overhead crossing would in
terfere with the water main.
W. +. Pascoe testified that the troll
ley line is constructed and in opera.
tion from tie Bloom street Reading
crossing TO Bloomsbury. He said all
local consents were obtained. The pap
ers were produced by the trolley cOun-
sci but were not opened. The cross
examination OF Mr.. Pascoe was on the
statement he made on Friday that
superintendent Rine, of the d. l.. &
w. gave him consent to cross the rail
road at Mill street. The witness again
testified that he talked with Mr.. Rine. |
who said he (Pascoe) should first give
him a plan of the crossing aud the
witness did so. o.giVing one of the stand |
ard ID. l.. q W. plans. Asked why he |
attempted to cross the railroad at !
night. having consent to cross it. Mr.. !
Pascoe's answer was Because it was |
the most opportune time and the work |
then could be done without interfer- |
ing with the ID. l.. 6S w. travel. " Mr.. |
Pascoe was asked if he saw light poles, |
wires, and so on. on Mill street before
beginning work on the trolley line.
'Yes, | did, but l didn't see that
camel back bridge you propose. was
the answer of the witness.
The railroad counsel at this point
called Superintendent Rine, of the ID.
l.. 81 W. in rebuttal of Mr.. Pascoe's
testimony Superintendent Rine ad- :
mitted talking to Mr.. Paesoe about the
crossing bat claimed to have told Mr..
Pascoe that he would have to make ap-
plicatiOn for crossing to the engineer
ing department Later witness re-
ceived a letter from Mr.. Pascoe asking
permission to cross the track and re-
ferred it to the chief engineer.
Mr.. Hinckley at this point offered
in evidence a Borough ordinance con-
cerning light and telephone and teIo-
graph poles to show that the Borough
had control over them but Mr.. Scarlet
objected to the Offering on the ground
that the ordinance merely provides for
the collection of fees and the several
have vested rights that the
Borough can not touch
Here the railroad counsel rested their
'a,e. Mr.. Scarlet favored having argu-
nent at once. urging that the prelim.
nary injunction ought to be quick Iy
dissolved. because of public interests,
nut agreed on the continuance to next
Friday in lieu of the fact that the case I
'ould not be argued by noon, when
Judge Little intended to adjourn court. 4