Year: 1870

Yesterday the argument on the prayers in she
case Of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
pany was concluded by Mr.. Cook, and to-day
Judge Fisher instructed the jury. After refer
il was not denied that the obstruction charged
existed; but the defendants claim that they exist
by authority Of law, and il was therefore for the
Court to instruct the jury as TO the law.


He quoted from the several acts Of Congress
relating to the road, saying that the act OF May
9Th, ISIS, was vague; that of March 2d, 1881, au-
thorized the extension Of the lateral branch OF
the road into the District; that of February 26.
1884, continued the preceding act i'm force and
the act of March 3, 1885, was supplemented 60
the preceding act The act Of 81 gave the road
authority to construct one lateral branch I'm the
District Of Columbia, and provided among
other things that it should not iIapede travel as
to the county, and should enter the city at such
point as they might determine on; that the level
should correspond with the level of the streets,
unless the Corporation should agree on a diff
ferent level. Outside the city they were given
the power to enter on private lands, but in the
city they had no power to touch q lot or s1uare
but were authorized to use streets and alleys,
and were bound to conform 70 the grade, as
now.


the road, that they could come through certain
squares, and repealed certain clauses In the pre-
cedlng acts inconsistent with that act. He COM
pared this act with the preceding acts, pointed
out the clauses repealed, and held that the same
rule which compelled the Company to respect
highways in the county compelled the respect
Of highways in the city. The Company were
authorized, first, 30 enter the city through the
belt Of squares named i'm the act of IS; second
not to take any point or route south Of II street
and west OF Delaware avenue until the consent
streets were not to be used except In crossing;
and fourth, they were not to interfere with
travel. He said that street, from I'd street TO
9Th, was nuisance unauthorized by law; that
the excavation at the intersection Of and ID
streets is nuisance unauthorized by law; that
the condition Of Seventh street east Is nuisance
unauthorized by law; that as il does not appear
that the road obstructs travel on the natural
surface there was no violation Of law; that there
is no power TO run the road on Delaware ave-
nue. longituninally, and that the depot as at
present located is unauthorized by law. The
depot lis located south and west of II street and
Delaware avenue, and is on the route 70 which
the act OF Congress provided that the Company
should frtt receive the assent of the Cor
poratlon. This route was surveyed by the enRi-
neer OF the Company, and il did not appear
that the Corporation had made any survey ~ H.
The depot, too, had once been removed, and the
power Of the city to fix the terminus of the road
was exhausted when the location Of the Depot
was changed. He had no doubt Of this, for cor
Porauons have no power which is not vested in
them, and the acts Of Congress give the Corpo-
ration no such power. The act of IS made IL
obligatory for the city to survey the route. and
he was satisfied that the location of the route
by the company and the assent of the
Corporation was an unwarranted assumption
Of power. To admit that the company and Cor
poration had this power is to admit that thew
may change the location of the depot eyery
year. II is no excuse for obstructing the streets
TO say that the city authorities have not done
their duty in regard to the grading. &c, for
parties may go into unimproved portions OF the
city and locate a nuisance, "a powder magazine
for instance, } and maintain it.


He directed the jury TO lind a verdict of guilty
on all the counts except the third, which charges
that the road obstructs travel by being below
the natural surface Of the ground and the fourth.
which has been abandoned.


The verdict having been entered, the counsel
proceeded to settle the bill Of exceptions noted
by the defense,