The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1913-05-27
TELEPHONE POLES
TOGOUP ONSOUTH
BRANCH Street
-LkE
Public Service Commission
Decides for Corporation
PETITION IS DISMISSED
Locations for Poles Made BY Board
of Village Trustees Are
Affirmed.
PETITION IS DISMISSED

The public service commission has
decided against the residents OF
South Branch street who appealed
from an order of the village trustees
granting a permit to the New Eng
land Telephone and Telegraph COM
pany to. erect line of poles and
wires on the west side of the street.
The finding of the commission was
received here today. II cites that a
hearing in the cause of Miner Cleve-
land ct ais. VS.. the New England Tel
ephone and Telegraph company was
held here on April IL with the full
board present, that Henry Chase and
Z. c. Archibald appeared for the pc
titioners,s that the state was repre-
scented by States Attorney w. j..
Meagher, the village by Charles A.
Maurer, the town of Bennington by
r. E. Healy and the company by Matt
B. Jones. The commission then
makes the following report:
This is a petition Of Miner Cleve-
land and other residents of the VIII
lage of Bennington, living on South
Branch street. alleging that petition
ers are owners of lands AUDITING on
the west side of said street; that the
street is not lawful public highway;
that application was made by petit
tionee for the right to locate line
of poles in the street, which permits
sion was granted without notice to
petitioners; that the trustees of the
Village OF Bennington indicated by
stakes driven in the ground where
said poles might be set. one of which
was within nine feet of the house of
one of the pet TONERS; that petition
ers presented protest and were
heard by the trustees on the site of
the proposed location and later the
trustees held an executive session
from which petitioners were exclud-
ed; that on the next day notice Of
the action of the trustees was given
by mail to petitioners showing loca-
ton of each pole, and adjudging that
no damage will hereby accrue to pc
titioners; that such meeting on the
site OF said proposed location was in
effect no hearing at all; that there
upon petitioners gave notice of an APP
peal TO the Public Service Commits
sion from the order of the Trustees.
II is further alleged that the petit
TONERS already maintains line of
tionee already maintains a line of
and that the proposed line is intend
ed for a trunk line for through toll
business, and that petitionee had at.
tempted to go over private land with
said proposed line. but had abandon.
ed the route for the more convenient
and less expensive one through
Branch street.
The petition is in the nature of an
appeal from said order OF the trus-
tees above mentioned and prays that
this commission issue an order direct
ing the petitionee either to abandon
its present proposed route" and re
turn to and resume its former route
over private lands, or else place its
said wires on its present proposed
route on South Branch street under
ground" and general prayer is add
ed for such other relief as TO the com
mission seems necessary and the pc
titioners' cause appears to require.
After due notice a hearing was had
in the Village OF Bennington on April
IL, 1913, with the appearances above
noted.
A supplementary petition asking
that wires be placed under ground
was filed and treated as part of the
main petition.
A motion was made on the part of |
the Village of Bennington that as to
ii the petition be dismissed. A SINH |
lar motion was made on the part of |
the Town of Bennington. Both mo-
tons were held pending final orders. |
From the evidence, including our
personal examination of the premis- |
es, we find that the proposed line is
necessary for the betterment of the
service of the telephone company to
l large public use not only in the VII
ag of Bennington. but to a great
lumber of patrons in different parts
)f Vermont; that the transmission OF
important toll business from points
n Massachusetts, to- patrons in Yer
mont will go over this line; tina.
south Branch street is a new street
With comparatively few houses there
m; that the line is already construct
d on North Branch street without
objection from any one; that the pro
est OF petitioners was given due hear
ng and that South Branch street is
lawful public highway.
We further find that no question Of
amage was raised in the hearing be
ore us and no claim vas made ex-
ept the claim that the line should ,
ither go In some other route or be
laced under ground. We further :