Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1908-04-09
THE PUBLIC WHARF
Hearing in County Court on Con.
domination Proceedings.
Notion 70 Dismiss ArRued and Over
ruled, md Commissioners Appoints
cd to Hear go Cnsc II Decis-
ion Is AfBrmcd.

There was hearing in Chittendcr
county court Friday evening IN the matter
of the condemnation proceedings by the
city OF Burlington. an appeal from the
action OF the city in seuestoring the
property at the foot of College street
for a public wharf. At tho conclusion
of the hearing. the motion Drought by
the Central Vermont Railway company
TO dismiss tho proceedings was ovcrrulcd
by Judge Hasclton. exceptions being al
lowed. After the adjournment of court
the attorneys on both sides held a con-
ference and agreed upon T.. s. Stanton
of Roxburv, G. F. Van Vlet Of Shell
burne and y. G. Nichols Of Essex as
commissioners to hear the case in the
matter of condemnation proceedings II
the decision OF the county court Is af.
firmed by the supreme court. and also
70 hear the case which involves the e1-
tension OF College street TO the lake
'front.'.
The motion to dismiss was argued
hv Judge ". ". Powers of Nor
risville as the representative Of the Rut-
lnud "a abroad, which has interests in the
matter. and A. tho representatives OF the
nortea gees OF the Central Vermont Rail.
way company. &. w Writer'S was present
the representative OF the Central
Vermont but did not participate in the
arguments r. r. Brown and city Az
torney J. II. Macomhcr appeared for the
city.
Judge Powers in arguing the motion to
sn,ss. said that under an act Of the
Legislature of 1906. the city claims au-
1hority to condemn land and to build
and maintain n public wharf He argued
first that authority had not been asked
from the secretary Of war to build
public wharf: that the city had no power
10 construct a wharf and to become
public wharfinger: that tho land in con-
trovcrsy IS already devoted TO a public
use; that the city claims 10 own a site
for wharf at the foot Of Maple street
and finally that the act authorizing the
wharf is invalid and void in that it
sives the city the right 70 Determine
tho necessity Of public wharf. 10 take
lard fo'' site and to determine the dam
ages. thereby becoming Judge of its own
case.
Mr.. Brown said il was premature 10
argue a. present the question 81 getting
authority from the secretary OF war as
that official would want first to know
where the wharf is to be built The
city. he said, has authority to build
and maintain public wharf, both
by virture Of the city and charter and
The law Of 1905 The land IN question
he argued, is now leased to the Shepard
& Morse Lumber company and has no
more TO do with public use than the
land behind the court house. Moreover.
land already used for one public purpose
Is some times taken for another public
use. Although the opposition claims that
the city has site at the foot of Maple
street. the citys right to that property
is strenuouosly opposed when ever it is
pressed. The matter of damages and
every other question involved is not left
with the city, making tho municipality
the Judge Of its own case, AS in every
instance the railroad has the right 10
appeal.
City Attorney Macomber in his argu-
mont emphasized the point that the con-
stitutionality Of the citv's claim is not
affected from the fact that it proposes
10 operate a public wharf.
OTHER COURT BUSINESS.
There was hearing Friday in the
case OF Mary l.. Marengo VS. Frank II.
Marengo. a petition FOR additional ali
rnony Additional alimony was not
granted but Mrs. Marengo was given
permission to leave the State with her
boy. The contempt proceedings against
Mr.. Marengo will be dismissed provided
h pays the alimonv now in arrears.
The divorce petition OF Grace F.. Ash
Icy vs. Edward n. Ashley was heard
Friday afternoon but no decision was
given.
In the case 81 Ira g. Chase vs.. Fred
Bushcy, an action Of replevin. judgment
was entered Friday morning for the
plaintiff TO return two heifers. the de-
PENDANT one cent damages and costs