Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-07-18
WILLARD ABSENT
AT SIDING HEARING.
B. & O. President Not Per-
SonaIIy Served With Sub
poena, Counsel Says.
BY WILLIAM J. WHEATLEY,
STAFF Correspondent OF The Star.

ROCKVILLE, Md, July 1s.-While
Daniel Willard, president of the Balti-
more & Ohio Railroad, did not make
his expected appearance before Kenneth
Lyddane, examiner in chancery here,
yesterday in answer &c a subpoena
issued for him to testify in the suit of
the railroad against the town of
Takoma Park, Md, in the controversy
over the use of certain public park
lands for the unloading of freight in
North Takoma, William Stanley of
counsel for the railroad, gave aSsur-
ances that he would be produced, If the
official was given reasonable time to
arrange to be present.
The subpoena was issued at the in
stance of j. Bond Smith, corporation
counsel, who is defending the suit. Mr..
Smith indicated to the writer that If
the official did not respond to the
subpoena he would cause an attachment
to be issued for him.
Return Made on Subpoena.
When the hearing was resumed yes
terday Mr.. Smith told Examiner
Lyddane that the return had been made
on the subpoena, showing that 1t had
been served by the sheriff OF Baltimore
City. He said that the subpoena direct
ed Mr.. Willard to be present at 10
o'clock yesterday morning, and that
counsel for the railroad had informed
him that the railroad president was
not there. He said he desired the
record to show this fact. with the
understanding that Mr.. Stanley could
make any statement he wished in re-
gard to the matter.
Mr.. Stanley said that he had been
advised by Gov. Cornwell, general
counsel for the railroad, that the sub
poena had been left at the Baltimore &
Ohio Offices in Baltimore, and that
efforts had been made to communicate
with Mr. Willard. He said that he had
been asked by the general counsel to
inform the town counsel that If Mr..
Willard we're given reasonable time to
make arrangements, he would be
present.
The presentation of testimony con-
tinued for another whole day yesterday,
with witnesses for both sides on the
stand. While it had been planned to
conclude today, it was said that this
would be impossible and that the argu-
ment of the case, planned for tomorrow,
could not be made. There are still
number of witnesses to be heard. and
some time will be allowed to President
Willard to make his appearance before
the examination is closed.
Those Who Testified.
Those who testified yesterday were
Bryan Davis, town clerk and treasurer
of Takoma Park William I. Bishop, in
duStrial agent of the railroad; M. D.
Finch, former councilman of Takoma
Park, and H. E. Rogers, a member of
the present counsel. Generally, the
testimony sought from all of these was
as to whether the strip of land in ques-
finn
of the public park system of the town.
Mr.. Bishop identified letter, over
his name, written in 1928 to an inStitu-
ton in Takoma Park which said that
the railroad company could not issue
any permit for the construction of a
building on the plot. as it belonged to
the town. He said he did not sign the
letter, but assumed responsibility for it.
The letter, he said, was written without
thorough investigation, and if he had
seen it he would have tagged it, and
prevented 1t going out as it did. He
said that 1t was unfortunate for the
railroad that it had gotten out Rail-
road counsel objected to the admission
OF the letter In evidence.
Mr.. Bishop said that the letter, in
stead of saying that the land was owned
by the town. should have said that it
was assumed that the strip was owned
by the town. Efforts of counsel for the
town to get him to admit that inVeSti-
cations made prior to the writing of
the letter showed that Takoma Park
owned the land failed. He said that
the maps he used for investigations as
to ownership were merely valuation
maps on file with the Interstate Com
merce Commission, and that they show
ed nothing outside of the right of way
at North Takoma. He did admit. on
questioning by Mr.. Smith, that If the
railroad had any easement outside of
the right of way at the point in ques-
ton, the valuation map should show it.
He testified that he personally made
no investigation when the request to
erect building on the property came
in, but that in the ordinary course of
business an examination was made in
his office and the records did not show
any deed for the land.
Mr.. Davis Testimony.
Mr.. Davis testified that the land in
question had never been assessed for
taxes, and this was objected to by
the presentation of the books was the
best evidence of this fact. He said
That the area in question and other
adjacent pieces had always been con-
sldered as park lands and that the
town had spent money in cleaning them
up. This was as far back as 1912, he
said, according to the minutes of the
council, and it was a matter of COM
mon knowledge that the area was a
public park owned by the town He
admitted that the railroad and the
town had co-operated in putting Gin
oerS on Takoma avenue, adjacent to
the strip, but would not admit that the
cinderS were placed in the street in
order to make it easier for the trucks
to get to the cars on the siding. He
said that the railroad had never placed
clnders on the land In controversy.
M. D. Finch, former councilman, said
that the ordinance adopted prohibiting
any vehicle moving over any public
park lands, was never intended to APP
ply to the strip in question, in his
opinion. Minutes Of the council meet
ings at which the park matter was
discussed were read to Mr.. Finch by
Mr.. Smith and the former admitted
their accuracy. He said that the cues
ton Of elimination Of the siding should
have been submitted to a referendum
Of the people, but Mr.. Smith called
his attention to the town charter which
did not provide for the submission Of
such questions to a referendum.
1t was with considerable difficulty
that Mr.. Smith obtained an admission
from the witness that the siding was
real issue at the election at which
Mr.. Finch said he was defeated. At
the time, he said, he didn't feel that
title to the strip was vested in the
town, and he said he would not have
voted for the ordinance il he had
known it applied to the strip.
Mr.. Rogers, who has been a member
of the town council since 1907, said
that he made the motion for the ref
erendum, because he thought if there
was going to be suit on the matter,
1t was better to have the instruction