Year: 1879

a right 10 do. The testimony OF their
own witnesses, as well as ours, is that
practicable and useful structure
could have been erected within
these limits.


Mr.. LAMB


followed, taking up the question OF the
necessity for the P, w. * XIV. Co. to
cross the land i'll question. He said
there was no question OF law involved
in the matter. 1t was merely questions
of fact. One OF these is. is 1t necessary
for the p, w. 4 Ky. road 10 have these
lands which now belong to usf They
claim that II is. We claim that 1t IS not.
This is one issue in the case. Mr.. Lamb
went on to show that in his view OF the
case, il the plaintiffs should succeed In
getting what they sought to con-
denim, il could be OF no use
to them on account OF an error
in their petition, which did not
properly locate the southern boundary
of the land; and that therefore what
could be of no use when in their posses
sion could not be necessary to them
Neither was it necessary for them TO
condemn four feet off OF the b. ~
bridge buttress, and so 1t could not be
necessary for them TO have the piece oi
land upon which that portion oil the
bridge is built. Mr.. Becker admits that
il is not necessary that they should have
the land outside of their proposed track.
Ii it is not necessary for them to have
all the land described in their petition,
they must frame petition properly de-
scribing the land it is necessary ior
them TO take. They surely cannot take
it under this.


In regard to the use of the tracts OF
land i'm question by the b. * .. Com
panv, he used much the same arguments
as his associate counsel, and merely am
phfed upon the points presented by Mr..
Russell, dwelling upon the more welghty
reasons which he considered ought TO
convince the jury in his clients favor,
and emphasizing them.


MR.. HUBBARD


closed the argument for the plaintiff
His remarks were, of course, only in an
swer 10 the arguments advanced by the
other side. He called attention to the
fact that his client did not desire to take
the land asked for from the defendant
Ii proposed to purchase it and pay
therefor every cent that jury OF twelve
men should see proper to award.


The counsel on the other side, he also
thought, were mistaken in saying that
the question was whether it was neces-
sary for the petitioners to take all the
land named in the petition. Railroads
seldom condemned Just so much land as
they found it necessary to use. The
true issue is, is it necessary in following
the line already laid down for the con-
templated extension and accepted by
the city, to cross the lands named?


Mr.. Russell, in his remarks, had in-
sinuated that Mr.. Boiling had not been
as careful as he might have been in run
ming the line. MIR. Hubbard was willing
to leave it to the jury il they ever knew
a case where such care and trouble had
been taken, and such extra expense con-
templated, expressly to avoid contro-
yersv or conflict of interests.


IN concluding, he became humorous
over the trestle-wOrk, which has played
so prominent part in the history OF the
case. He said ii a stranger should visit
the city and view the structure, he
would never suppose 1t TO be
"A part of the b. d o. road.
He would rather suppose it to be small
section of the Tuscarawas Valley rail-
road that had taken a flying leap across
the country and alighted on the bank
and become badly jammed out OF shape
in the fall The trestle is not reason.
able structure for legitimate railroad
purposes. 1t is not legitimate railroad
business for one railroad to Obstruct
and embarrass the operations of another
railroad.


At the conclusion the arguments to
the jury


RECESS


was taken until half past seven o'clock,
at which time His Honor Judge Boyd,
at the instance of the counsel for the
defense, instructed the jury in reference
TO the issue made in regard TO the piece
of land occupied in part by the tTestle,
that they must find their verdict for
the b. & o. railroad company
on this issue, unless from the
evidence in their possession they be-
lieve that the sole and exclusive object
of the b. < 0. railroad company in the
construction Of the trestle was Tor the
purpose OF hindering, embarrassing and
obstructing the proceedings initiated by
the p, W. 4 Ky. company for the pos
session of the land.


After receiving this charge, the jury
retired to their room for deliberatlon.
About 9 o'clock they returned, and


THE VERDICT


was announced. 1t is as follows:


ave, the jury, find for the petitioner
i'm the issues joined.


The effect OF the verdict, unless an APP
peal be taken, which is extremely prob
able, will be to cause the appointment OF
commissioners to view the land, con-
denim it to the uses of the F., W. Il Ky.
company, and assess a compensation to
be paid therefor by them to the b. x ..