Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-07-25
HOLDS MAYO BRIDGE IS
PUBLIC THOROUCHFARE
Judge Crump Decides Against Effort
of City TO Charge Toll to
Street Cars

Judge Crump Decides Against Effort
OF City TO Charge Toll to
Street Cars.
! MUST PAY FOR COST or TRACKS
Car Company Under Franchise TO
Assume Cost of Maintaining Paw
ing Between Rails and on Either
Side as in Ordinary Streets.
Holding that Mayo Bridge is public
thoroushtarc and may he used as such
under its franchise without the paw
meht OF TOLL as demanded BY the Ad-
illustrative Board. Judge Beverly T.
Crump handed down YESTERDAY in Tho
Law and Equity Court an opinion for
tue defendant in the suit of the city
OF Richmond against the Virginia Rail-
way and Power Company
'lN Attorney Pollard announced that
me city would carry It's fight 10 the
~ ma supreme Court of Appeals for
maj litigation. The money involved"
said Mr.. Pollard, would represent the
investment of huge sum bv the CITY.
ana the case will certainly not be al
lowed TO rest where il now stands"
Enofts were made by the Admins
tratire Board to compel the power
company to pay q rental Of $4,000 an
nuaiiy for operating its Hull Street
cars across Mayo Bridge. instead OF
merely keeping in repair the paving
between and for two feet on either
side OF the tracks. as is done on all
streets traversed by it's lines. The
company denied the right of the city to
charge this toll, but announced its Will
insness 10 pay for the upkecp of the
paving. This refusal led the board
tute suit against the company
Judge Crump's decision will in no
wise affect the action of the city Coun-
Gil In adopting an ordinance provid-
ing TOR the rcrouting Of the HUH Street
aud Gintcr Park car lines.
DECIDES BRIDGE. Is PART
or PUBLIC STREET
The opinion, in part, follows:
Under tho terms of the stimulation
between the parties the adjudication
OF this case is made "a turn upon the
decision Of the question OF the power
and authority Of tho city u own and
manage the new Mayo Fridge as a
toll bridge. in so far as the defendant
transportation company is concerned.
and so TO require tho company TO pay
an annual toll or charge for the use
of the bridge.
''If this basic question is determined
in favor of the city. then IL has the
pany to pay All annual charge for tho
use of the bridge aud TO enforce paw
ment of reasonable amount for that
purpose by appropriate judicial pro-
ceedings. If the city is without such
authority 1t cannot recover against
tho defendant company
1T is clear that the acquisition OF
the right of way for the bridge was
had under our general condemnation
statutes and that the bridge was con-
structed and opened by the city alto
enther IA public Improvement and
solely for public uses. and not in any
way as an incidental Investment by the
city OF municipal funds yielding
pecuniary return. II is substantial
permanent structure and was intended
for and is a public highway open and
free to the use of citizens and in that
respect does not differ from any other
public street OF the city.
The south side of the river is now
u part Of the city of Richmond and
Fourteenth street is a continuous pub
lie highway from its intersection with
Main Street TO tho southern limits Of
the city. ] think the bridge is obliged
10 he taken as a part of continuous
public street.
CAN COMPEL COMPANY
TO PAY FOR CONSTRuCTIoN
IF the bridge, as a part of the pub
lie street. is within tho franchises OF
the railway company. the city can com
pei the company to run its cars over
it. and car force 1t to comply with
the provisions Of it's franchises-such
as tho agreement on the part OF the
company to construct or ray for tho
reconstruction of. the tracks and neces-
sary acce ssories. to keep In repair the
paved roadway between tho tracks and
two feet on each side. and pay to the
city the stipulated percentage of its
| Increased revenue.
Under consideration Of the fran
chisc ordinances. under which the de
| PENDANT company is operating. of All
| the evidence. the statutes bearing upon
the questions presented, and Of the ar
| gumcnt of counsel and authorities
cited, my conclusion is that the right
of the company to continuous opera
! Fourteenth street across the bridge
and on Hull Street is embraced within
tho terms OF it's franchise and subject
! TO the obligations undertaken by it
therein, and that the city cannot, with
ont the consent OF the company, i'm
pose upon the company the payment OF
any compensation for Its crossing OF
the bridge In the continuous route men
toned in addition to the obligations
| and payments agreed to be pcrformed
and made by the company In its fran.
| chiscs"
Il contract LOT the Mayo bridge was
awarded by the Council Committee or
Streets before the creation of the Ad.
ministrative Board. The question was
raised at that time. but 1t was decided
that the city should proceed with the
construction OF tracks of standard type
leaving 10 a friendly suit the question
Just determined by Judge Crump. Wer,
tho city to win II was expected tina
tho city would continue to own III,
tracks and charge toll or rental fol
thcir use. IL thc~company Won /, YEA.
to reimburse tho city for the cost. some
$4,000. and hereafter keep its track.
streets.