The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1911-09-21
THREE MEN ARE FINEDFOR
I0BSTRUCTING1GOUll ROAD
1ljcktiANNoN AND NORTHERN
RAIL no AD COM PANYs AND THE
z 2. GO uNTY co URT HAVE INTER.
EsTINo CASE BEFORE JUSTICE

In Justice Amos court last even.
Ing three men, b. u. Fogel, c. II. Hun.
tel, Hss % Marshall were fined twen-
" dollars each for obstructing the
count road tat Parkersrun. The men
each gave bond! the sum Of one hun.
drei dollars nd took an appeal.
These men were employed in the
constructor work on the Buckhan.
non and Northern railroad that is be-
Ing built from l,lyesyllle to Martin,
Penn. s
ills tho claim Of tho county author,
tiles that the men in charge OF the
work on the line permitted machinery
and appliances used in grading the
road to obstrlct tho public highway
, and for thfs warrants were sworn out
Tor thelr; Arrest. The county court was
Vigorous In the prosecution that was
conducted Sby Prosecuting Attorney
Tusca Norris s. I; 4 Il, jy
5Fogel was Tho onlyEman that was
formally tried before the Justice.
Evidence was given by the State and
when 5it rested, tho defense announced
by Senator Meredith, that 1t also rest.
ed. I The defense insisted before the
J court that the state had not made
out q case. That In using the exact
words or the statute It failed to prove
one OF two things necessary to make
Its case. The State had to prove that
the machinery that; was left in the
road was there permanently or had
been abandoned; or that 1t was habltu.
ally left there by the defendant was
the argument OF the defense. 1t also
contended that there was no proof of.
tered to- the court that the machinery
I'M the road was that Of asMr. Fogel.
S!rhe other men were fined by agree.
saient sof the parties on the same evil
dence adduced In the trial against
Foge1. " " j;4;,
The State claimed that 1t proved
that the machinery In question was
! that OF Mr.. Fogels This 5factEi is ,estab:
Slfshed Gis claimed by the feyldence OF
Engineer shuttl tleswortt, who stated
son tie @itness stand that Eogel told
him that She permitted the machinery
TO be put in, the road. |. Z.
Another point that was brought out
;by the defense was that there had
been "a slip on the road that made II
impossible forRtrayelers to pass and
Z this slip had mot been removed by the
4 county court for three weeks and that
IL was the slip that was obstructing
the road and not the machinery. This
they claimed the county court made
no attempt to remove until the action
I was started against the men brought
Into court charged with the criminal
Eoffense OF obstructlng the public high
way.
After the, arrest OF the men that
were employed on the grading work
SSof the Buckhanponf and Northern
lsome ofSthe men that were working
q on the grading were employed by the
county to shovel out the dirt that hat
been carried on the county road bet
1.-the land slide that is said to have
obstructed the road
s :ts3 The Buckhannon and Northern hat
! built a road against the hill side fol
4 teams to pass. This the county cour
claims causes travellers to so too fal
to; gain a very little ground. The nev
\ road Is said to be about a milo and ;
1 quarter long and this has to be trav
eled to- get, the distance OF four hun
tedred feet.
The Buckhannon andt Northern
claims that 1t has a franchise to d.
all that Isis doing and that when it
work Is completed the county vii
have the read that It has now and alst
the Hillside road that ihas been bull
by the company for tho county.
ls TX 49, III 3------------------