Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-11-08
Androscoggin County Rescript.

The Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad
Co. and The Grand Trunk Railway Co.
Of Canada, Appellants from decree oil
the Railroad Commissioners.
Rescript, Peabody, ].
The proceedings in this case origina ted
Nov. 90 1900, in the petition of citizens
of the city of Auburn, in the county OF
AndrCscoggin, to the county commission
ers for the location of 4 public highway
within the city of Auburn over the lanf
and right Of way OF the Atlantic & ST
Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada.
The county commissioners after notice
and hearing. on the second day of April
1901, filed with the clerk of the cOlinty
commissioners their report of the loca-
ton of the highway. Subsequently, tn,
municipal officers of Auburn petitioned
the board of railroad commissioners tC
determine the manner and conditions Of
the crossing the railway with the high
way and apportiOn the expense of the
crossing, and upon this petition, after no
tice and hearing, the railroad commission
Il decree determining that the highway
should cross the track by an underpas,
and apportioning the expense Of construc-
tiCn and maintenance of the crossing An
appeal from this decree was taken and
entered in the supreme judicial court for
the county of AndrOScOggin at the Ian
uary term, 1905. A hearing on the appeal
was had before the justice without the
intervention OF 4 jury.
1t was claimed by the appellants that
upon the case presented by the evidence.
the proposed crossing was Il matter OF
law through land or right of way OF the
railroad corporation used for station pur-
poses; that there had been no adiu6iicl
ton of the railroad commissioners AS re
Qured by statute on the question of Dub-
lie convenience and necessity for the
crossing or way, and that therefore the
laying out of said way by the county
commissioners was illegal and void and
they requested the court TO rule as mat
ter of law upon the facts presented. that
the decree of the railroad commissioners
must he set aside and the appeal sus-
tanned. This ruling the court refused to
make, but ruled that the decree of the
railroad commissioners should be af-
firmed with costs and the appeal dis
missed. 70 this ruling and refusal to rule
the appellants excepted and upon their
exceptions the case comes before the law
court.
The sole question involved in the excep-
tons is whether the land and right of
way OF the railroad corporation at the
point of the proposed crossing are land
and right Of way. of a railroad corpora
ton used for station purposes within the
me aiming of section ~. chapter IS, r. S.
1883, or section 81, chapter %, r. S. 1903.
which statute is as follows: Sec. q. No
way shall be laid out, through or across
any land or right of way of any railroad
corporation. USED for station purposes,
unless after notice and hearing the rail
road commissioners adjudge that public
convenience and necessity require it.
When the tribunal having jurisdiction
over the laying out of such way is salts
fed, after hearing, that public CON
venience and necessity require such lay
ing out, such proceedings shall be sus-
pended and petition filed by such tribunal
with the railroad commissioners for thei..
adjudication hereunder"
A railroad exercises its franchise in the
prosecution of it's transportation business
subject TO the rights OF the public X
tend highways over its right of way, and
in this State its track may be crossed
by ways laid out in the same manner as
other ways but the manner, condition
and expense of the crossing are placed by
the statute under the jurisdiction of the
railroad commissioners; and when the
proposed location is over or across the
right of way or land of any railroad cor
there must be an adjudication by this tri-
bunal that public convenience and neces-
Sity require ii.
The term station purposes does not
admit of any precise definition In every
case in determining what are statute
grounds these conditions must concur
The grounds must be necessary, con-
venient and actually used by the rail
They therefore include sufficient land for
sale and convenient approaches and exits
for the public requiring passenger and
freight transportation, for the location of
depot buildings, warehouses. platforms,
fixtures and apparatus for taking water
and fuel supplies lighting, heating, trans
mission messages and giving signals. sid
iEeH T, 7 Passing trains, shifting and stOr-
ine ears md Other property. switches and
si.ac" " re passengers may get and
off trains and goods loaded and unloaded.
An important factor i'll determining what
land may be necessary and convenient for
station purposes is the amount and char
actcr of the railroad business at the par
ticular station. Where the facts are
clear. upon undisputed evidence the ques-
ton may properly be one of law but or
dinarily it must be considered one OF
fact. At the hearing on the appeal vol
luminous and somewhat conflicting evil
dence was introduced showing facts and
circumstances bearing upon the conditions
of convenience. necessity and actual use
of station grounds at Danville Junction,
the station on the line of the Grand
Trunk Railway at ITS intersection with
the Maine Central Railroad, and it is
evident that in this case the question
involved is one of fact and not of law
and the appellate court rendered a de-
ciSiOn based upOn the evidence. 1t is a
we'll settled rule that this court cannot
disturb the findings of the presiding JUS
tice upon what might apparently be n
preponderancc of the evidence. The re
port fails to show that the findings of the
appellate court are erroneous, and the
rulings based thereon are clearly correct
Exceptions overrued."
Received, Nov. Z, 1905.