The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1915-05-07
Memory of Witnesses as to
Abutment of Bridge
Across River
IMPORTANT BEARING
IN AVERILL CASE
Survey of Vermont Valley Railroad
Based on Abutment Location-Old
Residents Do Not Recall That It
Was Moved from Original Site.

Was Moved from Original Site.
fame adjourned yesterday afternoon for
the day the attorneys for the Vermont
Valley railroad, defendant in the suit
brought by George G. Ayerill because
of a dispute over the boundary lines
of the two parties, offered a deposition
which had been taken last summer in
perpetuam, and objection was raised
by attorneys for the plaintiff.
The objection, which was to the eff
feet that the statute had not been
complied with in that the deposition
had no been properly recorded in the
Office of the county clerk, was sustain
ed by the court and the deposition was
not admitted as evidence.
/ The cross examination of Mr.. Per
kins, the civil engineer for the rail
road, who was on the stand at the
close of the morning session yesterday,
was completed yesterday afternoon, his
| plans being admitted in evidence.
| w. III. Yinton of Brattleboro testi,
| fed that he had lived In Brattleboro
many years and remembered the floods
of 81, go and 80 and the damage
done by them. He told of this in de-
tail. He said that as he remembered
/ it the bridge over the Connecticut
river, which replaced the one washed
away in the flood of 80, was built
with the west abutment unchanged.
The significance of this testimony is
understood when It is known that the
basis of the tlaim of location by the
defendant company is on the fact that
the original survey was started from
the northwest corner of the west
abutment of the highway bridge over
t II
point of the old survey of the railroad
property. If the plaintiff could show
i that the west abutment had been
tmoved westward from its original
location, since the railroad survey was
Imade, it would tend to substantiate
his claim that present railroad surveys
(which include property which he claims
lis his, are erroneous.
Mr.. Ninton also testified that as he
remembered it the present stone arch
bridge of the railroad over MILESTONE
brook, which replaced wooden bridge
that was washed away, is on the same
location.
A. Y. Cox, another old resident, tes
titled to the floods of '62 and 90 and
the damage done by them and was pos
tive that the west abutment. the basis
of the railroad survey of 1850, had not
pCth SHdIRtu lIOHA It's OIl8iHdI lOtu
4 ton.
! Patrick Fleming, who testified il
: similar vein, was the last witness yes
terday afternoon.
Il This morning at the opening of cour
G f. I. Clark, an old engineer of Spring
e field, Mass, testified to having mao
c survey for the railroad in 1866 an,
t this was allowed in evidence. He testi
a fed in detail as to the objects he use,
d as marks and by what means he de
c termined the center line of the prop
erty. His survey showed what the dc
/ fendant company claims, that the wal
l. built by Mr.. Averill is on railroa
r property.
o Harry R. Lawrence testified to tn
5. floods of '62 and go and believe
1, that the west abutment of the bridg
e. over the river had not been changed
4 III. L. Streeter of Hinsdale testife
Is that he believed the west abutmer
had not been changed.
Martin Dunn of Bratt1eboro testifie
that he was a section hand of the Bo
ton & Maine railroad in 1888 and ths
when he cut brush along the railroa
property he did not respect the fence
" but cut whatever brush and grass bo
' dered on the railroad. Court adjournf
at noon when his direct testimony ha
- been concluded.