The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-03-02


expense to the Company
10 this quetson and answer appellant objected and moved to
strike same from the record which oyerued BY the Commission
and n action q the Commission constitutes the first assignment
urged BY plaintiff relieved from the necessity az nassno
upon the competency Of this evidence by the admission Of counsel
o the Corporation Commission his brief that The question
thereto mcompeen but does necessarily follow
at because Of this confession Of that the order of the Com
mission should be reversed for the order supported by other
sufficient competent evidence the of the Commission in
admitting this evidence without injury appellant Norfolk g
W. Ry. Go. as. Tdetasr ~ Co. Ic5 Va 100
Appellant insists that the foregoing and reasons certified
the order appealed from is based are not supported bv tr n
An examination Of the record dscoe that some Of the facts and
found made and certified by the Commission require modi
cation in der conform the evidence and unsupported
by any competent evidence The Commission found that the railway
company io some ,lHe poDaDy period OF eighteen months main
tanned agent the Of Phillips for the purpose facilitating
the Companys business switching COAL which concentrated Il
hat point Inns finding inaccurate and misleading unless read il
connection with the evidence There mines in the
vicinity the town Of Phillips from which the coal gathered and
concentrated the assembling yards the Company at Ph
FROM these yards the coal shipped railway other than
the main line Of the Company the Of Legh Coalqac
and from there the points Of destination For the railway
company kept Phillips employee who operator helped to
direct the assembling this coal and the shipping Of the out 10
The different points Of destination but this employee never acted a
agent of the Company the Of Phillips sense that
term IS generally used and understood in connection with
operation Of railway lie authorized did not receive
freight for transportation and did collect receive moneys fo
the Company sell tickets passengers who entered the Companys
trains from that town The passenger trains Of the Company stop
each day at Phillips and passengers ard from that point are per-
mtted to depart from or enter the appellants trains At the time
appellant acquired property Phillips acquired two room
buiding Of which converted into storage for
the Company and the other prepared as waiting room
where passengers who the Companys railway the pu
pose OF departing on its trains permitted wait protect
themselves from the weather but this building has been main
tanned depot to the extent that freight received tl and
passenger tickets sold The found assigned in the M
Of the Commissions findings to the effect that in view o
the fact that this used as concentration point for the ship
ment Of coal appears that the defendant could maintain an agent
at the town 81 Phillips without great additional expense unsup
ported by competent evidence The only evidence the
tending support this finding the evidence previously set ont
admitted by counsel for the Commission be incompetent On the
other hand officers Of the Company who charge of operating
this portion OF the lompanys railway system testify that depot and
agent cannot be maintained at the Of Phillips without
requiring additional employee 70 those required the road
operated They further testify that the coal which assembled in
the yard at Phillips IS not and would not be il depot
maintained at that point billed and shipped from that point
that the brought into Legh Coagac OF the
company and upon the line Of the railway company and IS
billed and shipped from those points aid that this practice would be
continued an agent was established At Phillips and at hc same
number Of employees required the Companys stations at
Lehgh and Coasa would be required after the establishment OF
agent At Phillips that the Company had ndeavored by placing
employee Phillips o reduce the working force at the other
stations and had found from experience that mpraccablc
This evidence behalf Of the appellant BY any
competent evidence and The finding Of Commission upon which
point cannot be sustained But Notwithstanding Of the evidence
admitted incompetent and Of the found BY the Com
mission not supported by he evidence the order Of the Com
mission should not be reversed unless made to appear from the
facts found from competent evidence the record that such
is unreasonable and unjust
After eliminating those facts found and reasons assigned BY the
Commission which appear be supported by the evidence we
have left basis for the order made BY the Commission about
following facts: ss,esaaa.gs
Inc lown OF Fhlps consists OF about $50 people with settle
ment adjoining which increases its population approximately
1000 1t situated about 2H miles from Leigh and mikes from
Coagate at which places appellant maintains regular stations and
dpots Considerable business done at said nof Philips
The finding Of the Commission the quantity Of business
done at the town. and to the pubic necessity for the establishment
OF depot and agent very general and indefinite and almost
equivalent finding upon this and if required
look to the facts found by the Commission alone whether
the order is reasonable and just opinion the order would have
70 be set aside not because Of affirmative finding that shows the
order to be unreasonable and unjust but because Of lack of sufficient
findings to show any necessity for the additional service appellant
required by the order give The Constitution requires the
mission to certify appeal from any Of its orders the facts and
upon which the Commission bases its order Such require
men made for the purpose Of furnishing this court an aid IN
determining whether the order made reasonable and JUST and
while all acts Of the Commission be regarded as pa acie
Just reasonable and correct its findings of fact assigned
Tor the making order refusal make are not
conclusive upon this and where there findings Of facts
by the Commission afrmavey showing that order made is
unreasonable and unjust in the absence Of any Of this
court prescribing the procedure before the Commission on appeal
here we think the court should consider only the facts found BY
the Commission but also all the evidence in the record which fairly
support Consttr;on