The Brattleboro reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1907-1912, 1909-11-19
SWEEPING DENIAL
MADE TO ORATORS
In Answer of the Connecticut
River Power Co.
TO PETITION OF JUDGE HEIRS

Claim That Granting of Injunctio
Would Render valueless an Invest
ment of s3,ooO,OOO Besides THROWN
| 5000 to 10000 Hands Out of Work
| The answer and cross bill of the Connet
| tleut River Power company to the petitio
] oI Thomas A. Judge ct ais asking for al
! hJunctlon to restrain the company frol
: Noodlng the Judge property on Verno
: : street IN Brattleboro was filed in the Wind
! nam county chancery court Saturday. TIL
answer shows that if a temporary injunc
non should be granted as prayed for b,
the orators an investment of 5000, ,0O
would be made practically valueless. Th
large amount OF money invested in manu-
featuring plants employing in the aggre
gate between 5000 and 10000 people which
now depend entirely upon the current from
tne plant OF the power company would bt
IDLE. In addition to the vested interest.
that would be crippled by such an order
The answer of the company calls attention
10 the fact that cities and towns aggre
gatlng 10000 population are dependent
upon the current from the great dam at
Nernon for lighting purposes. Beyond the
mere money loss, which would run into
the millions should the Vermont courts
order the dam demolished on the Vermont
|
fall upon the thousands of workmen and
their families cannot be estimated.
The defendant company says that all of
the structures set forth in the orators bill
OF complaint which cause the setting back
of the waters of the Connecticut river at
any point near or opposite to the lands of
the orators are within the state of New
Hampshire and are without the jurisdic-
ton OF the Windham county court of chan
Gerry. The defendant admits the location
and character of the Connecticut river as
set forth in the orators bill" The com
pany, however, denies that the land of the
Judge property was above the highwater
line and mark of the river until after the
construction of the dam at Vernon and
says that from time immemorlal the high
water mark of the river was above the
level of the said land"
The company AYERS that the Judge land
does not adioin the Connecticut river or
the bankslo the. river at any point and
claims thai there |" tract OF land 100 feet
or more in width between tie Judge land
and the river bank. The company claims
that this strip of land is owned by the New
London Northern railroad company and
that it is under lease to the Central Yer
mont railway company and that the rail
road land is above the high water mark of
the river and has been since the erection
of the offending structures mentioned in
the petition of the orators.
The defendant denies that before the
building of the dam and raising of the
waters of the river thereby the land IN
question was dry and fit for cultivation
and valuable for tillage and agricultural
purposes. The company says that III wet
seasons and in times of high water the
Judge land has practically always been
covered with water and that it was damp
and of little or no value for agricultural
purposes. While the company admits the
occupancy of the land by two story house
it claims that the property was not very
suitable for house lots or for the erection
of manufacturing establishments. 1t de-
nies that the house on the Judge property
was OF good construction and says that 1t
was in rundown condition and was OF
little value for tenement purposes.
One of the main points made by the de
fendant in its answer is that the building
of the dam at Vernon has not been respon-
sible for the flooding of the lands OF the
orators, rendering the same unproductlVe
and worthless for agricultural purposes,
house lots or manufacturing purposes. Inc
defendant says that some time after the
setting back of the water from the dam at
Nernon there began, all unexpected by the
defendant, a percolatlon OF water through
he land and embankment of the railroad
from the river INTO the orator
and and that the percolatlon has ever
since continued to more or less extent 50
hat a portion of perhaps one-thlrd to one :
laIf of the area of the orators land is now
,overed by water. The defendant denies
hat the flooded area includes the house on
he Judge property though the company
acknowledges that there is more or less
water in the cellar. No attempt IS made
" the company to deny the presence oI
he deadly masma" set forth IN the peti-
ion of the orators, but the defendant de
lies that the percolatlon OF water mas IeIl- :
cred the house unhealthful and unht Tor
dwelling place and AYERS that the loss
nd damage sustained by the orators
Trough the percoation of water INTO thelr
md has been slight
The company denies that during the con
truction of its dam at Vernon the orators
rotested against the structure being DuuG
r that they have frequently, protested
yainst the company maintaining lts dalll.
he defendant also denies that the orators
ave requested the defendant to reduce the
am and denies that it has detied the ora
,rs and refused to give them rellet. Inc
efendant AYERS that the first time the ora
,rs made any suggestion that their land
ould be damaged by flooding was about a
oar and a half after work had been begun
Don the DAM The defendant says that
hen the suggestion was made OF such
image the company informed the orators
,at Il had been informed by its engineers
Iat no damage was expected to result
ON building the dam as planned, but
ould any damage come through the
hiding of the dam the defendant .was
llv ready TO protect the property of the
ators by filling in the land in question
id by water proohng the basement OF the
ators' house and raising the building II
,cessarv. The company states that 1t
fered to put up a bond with sureties to
otect the orators should any damage oc-
r as suggested. The company also AYERS
at it offered to purchase the Judge
operty at a price exceeding its value. At
e time of the negotiations between the
mpany and the Judge heirs, which was
rough counsel, the company AYERS that
e counsel for the orators only desired full
lue for the property of the orators and
at the orators did not object to the con-
-uction and maintenance of the dam so
~ as they were to be protected from
5 or damage by the water fiowage.
The defendant further SAYS that il be
YES that the orators have all the time
derstood that the railroad company pur-
sed to and of necessity was compelled to
luire said land by purchase or by exer-
e of rights of eminent domain. The
npany claims that it has offered the ora
: all of the damage they have sustained
the percolation of water from the Con
sticut river. The company AYERS that