The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1911-02-01
INC Bridge contention.

The BfluBe C0ntenUon.
1t strikes the Telegram that some
action ought to be taken toward the
care and maintenance Of the bridges
crossing Elk creek within this city.
There has been considerable conten-
ton as to whether the city or the
county ought to exercise authority.
over the bridges and case is now
pending on appeal in the supreme.
court respecting damage suit that
was; brought against the county
court by q citizen who was injureI'
on the Glen ELK bridge.
Without entering into any discus
sion as to the merits of this APP
peal, it appears from a decision Of
the circuit court here, from de-
c!ston. of the supreme court. ina.
somewhat similar case and from
the action Of other 'ounty courts
that general statutes have given the
city and not the county court the.
authority over bridges within the.
city limits,
Owing to the fact that the county
court had therefore taken charge OF
the bridges within the city limits
and was presumably taking care
OF some OF the bridges at the time,
the Telegram yentured the opinion
several months ago that the body
ought to continue such control until
some positive action toward relin-
gushing it had been taken. AT
that time this newspaper did not
state whether the city council or
the county court should ultimately
control the bridges, as that phase
of the question was not Analysed,
but It believed then, as it does now,
that some official body ought to
have them in charge.
Had the court turned over the
bridges to the city,. or had it not
assumed the responsibility OF caring
for some Of the bridges, which this
newspaper is informed 1t has
been doing since then and is doing
now, at least in the case OF one.
bridge now undergoing repairs, there
would have been little question.
concerning a solution of the prob
lem. But, it seems to the Telegram,
in view of the general laws as we'll
as expedlency, that this bridge ques-
ton ought to be settled definitely
as soon as possible and it seems,
also, that the county court ought TO
take action Of some kind in the
premises. If the county court in
tends to continue its care of the city
bridges that body ought to take
care of them all in the proper man
ner and not neglect them. So long
as it presumably cares for the
bridges or any number OF them it
will doubtless have the job entirely
in its hands.
In this connection, the Telegram
publishes herewith the substance OF
an order passed few days ago by
the county court OF Marion county,
certified copies of which the clerk
Of the court was instructed to serve
on each OF the mayors of the several
municipal corporations in that
county:
TT appearing to the county court
of Marion county that there are a
number of municipal corporations
within the boundary of Marion
county, namely: City OF Fairmont,
City OF Warrington, Town of Worth
ington, Town OF Monongah, Town
OF Fairview, Town of Evansville,
Town of Pennington, and Town OF
and that there are sew
eral public bridges located within
the corporate limits Of said respec-
tive municipal corporations now or
heretofore named, controlled and
maintained by the county court Of
Marion county, and it further ap-I
pearing to the court that in the
case Of Lillian S. Lavender VS.. thei
City Of Charleston, reported in vol
ume G2, page 564, of the West vir-
GINA Reports, the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia has de-