The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1913-02-26

Chase admitted that there was n,
such law in this state and that tn,
only objection was that he did no
want the poles on the west side o
| the street and that the trustees
should locate the same on the cas-
side Of the street and shorten up thu
street to two rods rather than The
three rod street as at the presen
time. Mr. Chase further admitted
the law to be exactly as | had LAID il
down and said that the trustees
would have 10 locate the poles &C
cording to the petition OF the Tele
phone Company Tor location ON said
street, either on the east or west side
of said street.
When Mr.. Chase said In his letter
"on the contrary we could plainly see
that, owing to the way the board was
being advised in the matter, the trus.
tees could not offer us much relief,
would say that Mr.. Chase was given
every facility within the power OF the
corporation attorney, that the law
was discussed at length and various
methods of getting around the diff.
Guilty was proposed, gone over and
recommended to the trustees. MIR.
Chase had several consultations with
me and knew exactly how | would ad.
wise the trustees regarding the law.
| therefor without any qualifications
say that Mr.. Chase in his criticism,
though he says it is not criticism mas
wilfuily misstated the position taken
by the trustees and the corporation
attorney.
The entire matter in dispute is
over the location of three poles all
or which are located at property
lines changing from the present loca.
ton on the east side of the street to
the west side OF the street and remoy
ing from the street several other
poles. There are no trees to be trim.
med under the location of the trus.
tees, should the trustees have locat.
ed the poles on the east side of the
street 1t would have been necessary
to have trimmed trees in the Evans
barrow, Hurley Shay, Rogers, Brad
bury, Woodward and Slade proper
ties and all OF these people request
ed the location to be made on the
west side OF the street.
At the time of the filing of the OBJ
Jectlons and the first hearing thereon
Mr.. Chase raised the question thai
as being the owner of the fee in the
soil that he was entitled to sub
stantial damages for the erection o.
the pole on his property line; having
raised so many questions and made
search of the public record and founC
that he did not own the fee in the
SOIL and that the property on tht
easterly side OF the street owned tn,
same and said owners requested
that the poles be located on the ives
side OF the street and they fully anC
freely gave their consent.
The insinuations that the Office O
the corporation attorney was useC
FOR the benefit of the Telephone peo
pie was made by Mr.. Chase with III,
null knowledge CT its falsity at tn,
tlme that he made the same and
charge him openly with having wi
tully and falsely and intentionall-
Llisstated the entire matter from
start to finish and that the trustee
VIII gladly welcome a decision of tn
Public Service Commission and tn,
supreme Court that may guide then
henceforth. AS to the corporation
attorney he leaves his record of suit
against corporations and his activ
interest in the welfare of the peopl
and his known willingness 10 Away
help and aid the poor man in troubI
as mis- best answer to the false an
baseless insinuations OF Mr.. Chase i
his letter.
| Charles A. Maurer.
| Corporation Attorney.