The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1922-07-06
THEATER PEOPLE
DECLARE MCRAY
IS TRESPASSING
Assert That Garage En-
croaches Four Feet on
Ogden Avenue.

Demands for 1872 feet OF land.
measuring from Adams street to
ogden avenue, formerly Hull al
ley, even if a part OIL the paved
street is required, were made be
fore the Fairmont Board OF At
fairs by the West Virginia Amuse-
ment Co. at a conference held at
10 O'Clock this morning.
Mayor William w. Conway
interrupted a prolonged discus
sion by the attorneys with the
suggestion that engineers Of the
parties concerned hole a session,
make a survey of tie property in
question, reach some agreement il
possible and report at another
conference to be held at 2 o'clock
tomorrow afternoon 1t was SO
agreed.
The theater-building concern
was represented by Attorney Os-
mand E. Schwartz, and c. D.
Robinson and S. D.. Brady, heads
Of the amusement company. were
present and Joined in the discus
sion. The complainants against
the alleged encroachment were
represented by Attorneys l..
French McCray and F. c. Hay
| mond. Lawrence F. McCray,
proprietor of the McCray Garage
on ogden avenue, opposite the
rear end of the proposed theater,
was present also.
NIcCray's Argument.
Attorney McCray was the first
person called upon to speak at the
conference. His argument was
as follows, in part:
1.-The West Virginia Amuse-
ment Co. is now about to erect
part of it's th8ater building on
! what would be the paved portion
of Hully alley, known since 1902
as Ogden
I'm August, 1909, the various
property owners on both sides of
the alley made an attempt to
widen the alley to more than
twenty feet,~to make is as nearly
twenty-five feet as possible. Pro-
perty owners at one entrance of
the block gave only to the edge of
their buildings, leaving an alley,
at this point, Of about twenty-one
feet. Along the rest of the street,
there was the full width of about
twenty-five or twenty-five and one
half feet.
Deeds were given the city for
all except one piece of property.
then known as the Barnes, nov
one of the two lots on which the
theater nee proposes to erect
it's building. The Barnes people
! gave their property the same as
the others however, and this prov
| ed by the fact that they moved
their fence back. The city took
, possession Of the alley thus given
| and paved it and put in a water
| plug and the street has been in
use for nineteen years since Its
paving.
''If the city allows this building
to be erected on a part of Ogden
avenue, the city will be giving UP
| something it owns and has a right
to have. The property owners in
tended to give the strips OF pro
perty on either side of the street
or they would not nave allowed
the city tt put. in paving. If the
Barnes people hadn't intended to
give their part, they wouldnt
! have moved back the fence. If
| the city hadn't INTENDED to accept
! the land as a street, the city
wouldn't have paved 1t.
lone party along the street IS
of the opinion that all the proper
ty owners can take back their
| parts of the street. If this is done,
only q. small walk-way will be left
| 1t wouldn't even be an ordinary
| alley. The theater concern wants
! to put the northeast corner of its
! building out seven feet in the
| alley and the southeast corner
three feet in the alley"
Schwartz Explains Stand
Attorney Schwartz explained the
position Of the West Virginia
Amusement Co, as follows:
when this theater was project
ed, the owners of the ground Went
to their records to see what they
had. Their deeds called for 16s
| feet of land between Adams street
! and Hull alley. The location OF
these lots was on the original map
OF Middleton which was the otd
name for Fairmont.
THE front line of the lots on
Adams street seemed by a
fixed beyond any reasonable
doubt. On one of the lots, 1t seem
ed that a former owner had oeea-
ed to the city three feet. rms
deed might or might not be valio.
On the other parcel no reduction
had been made
THE West Virginia Amusement
Co. realized that. the Watson deed
might be valid and did not want
to make an offset in the street.
SO decided to move its building
back and dedicate to the city the
three feet of the Barnes property
In all this, they had no thought OF
trouble from any source.
Now it seems, there is some
objection. Acity policeman came
down yesterday and asked thai
work on the street be stopped AS
a matter of courtesy to the CITY
and not in recognition of its au'
thority, we stopped work:
1--WE want to request that "nat
ever the citys attitude may be-
the decision of the board be made
promptly. 1t is holding up ouI
work. It is going to cost some Oh.
a great deal of money. II we are
wrong, it will cost US the money:
IF we are right, it is going to cost
somebody else the money.
1--WE are willing to recognize the