residents of Dola Township, Hardin County, Ohio, praying the Commission to make an investigation of the existing station facilities provided by the defendant at Dola, Ohio, and to order the provision of adequate station facilities in the place thereof. Following the presentation of complainants' evidence at the investigation held in this matter, the parties joined in requesting the Commission to withhold the issuance of an order pending the completion of negotiations inaugurated during the progress of the case looking to the correction of the cause of complaint. 110. Investigation by the Commission, Upon Its Own Motion, of the Management of the Passenger Terminal of The Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company at Cincinnati, Ohio. On the eleventh day of October, 1910, the Commission entered the following order: The Commission, having under consideration the management of the passenger terminal of The Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company at Cincinnati, Ohio, and believing that an inquiry of all matters and things pertaining thereto should be made, in order that the Commission may be informed as to the manner and method in which said railroad company conducts its business at said terminal, and, in order that the Commission may be better able to perform its duties, it is ORDERED, That an investigation of the management of said passenger terminal be made, and that Thursday, the twenty-seventh day of October, 1910, at 10 o'clock a. m., in room three, first floor, of the Central Union Depot at Cincinnati, Ohio, be and it is hereby fixed as the time and place for such investigation. It is further ORDERED, That the said The Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company be duly notified of such investigation by the forwarding of a copy of this order to the proper official, or officials of said company, And on November 10, 1910, spread the following entry: This day this case came on for investigation, and it appearing that material improvement had been made in the method of handling corpses, that increased business had been met by the employment of additional help, that further improvement would be made in the Information Bureau Service, Bulletin Board Service and the filing of tariffs, and that the defendant, together with certain other carriers entering this terminal, had under way negotiations looking to the acquisition of a new and enlarged passenger terminal which would obviate all the difficulties now experienced, both from lack of space in this terminal itself as well as insufficient trackage entering the same, no further order was deemed necessary in this case and the same was thereupon dismissed without further record. III. Investigation by the Commission, Upon Its Own Motion, of the Management of the Passenger Terminal of The Toledo and Ohio Central Railway Company at Columbus, Ohio. On the twenty-fourth day of October, 1910, the Commission entered the following order: The Commission having under consideration the management of the passenger terminal of The Toledo and Ohio Central Railway Company at Columbus, Ohio, and believing that an inquiry of all matters and things pertaining thereto should be made, in order that the Commission may be informed as to the manner and method in which said railway company conducts its business at said terminal, and in order that the Commission may be better able to perform its duties; it is ORDERED, That an investigation of the management of said passenger terminal be made, and that Monday, the thirty-first day of October, 1910, at 11 o'clock a. m., in the offices of the Commission, on the sixth floor of the New First National Bank Building, Columbus, Ohio, be, and it is hereby fixed as the time and place for such investigation. It is further ORDERED, That the Toledo and Ohio Central Railway Company be duly notified of such investigation by the forwarding of a copy of this order to the proper official, or officials, of said company, And on October 31, 1910, spread the following entry: This case coming on for investigation this 31st day of October, 1910, and it appearing that the delay in train service was caused largely by the extensive improvements under way at this point, in the elimination of grade crossings, no order was deemed necessary and this proceeding is accordingly dismissed without further record. 112. Edward Baechler and Christian Baechler, Comprising Baechler Coal and Supply Company, a Partnership, Complainants, versus The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, Defendant. The complaint sets out: 1. That Edward Baechler and Christian Baechler are sole partners in a private partnership known as Baechler Coal and Supply Com pany, that their principal place of business is located at 329 East Market Street, Lima, Ohio, where they are engaged, among other things, in the business of dealing in and selling coal. 2. That the above named railway company is a common carrier, engaged in the transportation of persons and property by railroad between points in the State of Ohio, and that as such common carrier said defendant is subject to the provisions of the laws of the State of Ohio relating to common carriers. 3. That on or about February 2, 1910, there was delivered to the complainants at Lima, Ohio, by the defendant, a car of coal shipped by the Canaan Coal Company from its mine at Canaanville, Ohio, on January 29, 1910, the same being car T., W. V. & O. 808269; that said car, as shown by the certificate of the weighmaster at the point of origin, contained 61,200 pounds of lump coal, the purchase price of said coal at the mine being one and 65/100 dollars ($1.65) per ton, and the freight rate upon said coal, as set forth in the tariff of the B. & O. S. W. R. R. Company, originating line, and participated in by the defendant herein, the C., H. & D. Ry. Company, from point of origin to destination, was one dollar ($1.00) per ton; that upon arrival of said car of coal at Lima, Ohio, said car was re-weighed and that the weight of coal in said car was shown by said re-weighing 58,600 pounds; that the difference of 2,600 pounds between the weight of said coal at point of origin and the weight at destination represents a loss to these complainants for which they are entitled to reimbursement at the price. paid at the mine in addition to the freight rate at the rate of one dollar ($1.00) per ton thereon. The complainants represent that on or about March 2, 1910, they presented a claim to said defendant, which claim was rejected by said defendant August 8, 1910; that a renewal of said claim was made to defendant October 7, 1910, and that the same was again rejected October 14, 1910. Wherefore, the complainants pray that the aforesaid defendant company be required to answer the charges herein, and that after due hearing and investigation an order be made commanding said railway company to pay to complainants the sum of money claimed by complainants to be justly due them as result of the negligence of defendant as above set forth, and for such other and further order as the Commission may deem necessary and just in the premises. Defendant being in default for answer, this cause was set down for investigation, when complainants feeling they would not be justified, because of the small sum involved, in making a special trip to Columbus, asked that the mater be continued without day. 113. W. T. Estes, Complainant, versus The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, Defendant. Decided February 8, 1911. The complaint herein states: 1. The complainant says that he, W. T. Estes, is an individual. dealer in leaf tobacco, whose business is located at Carlisle, Ohio. 2. That the above named railway company is a common carrier, engaged in the transportation of persons and property by railroad between points in the State of Ohio, and that as such common carrier said defendant is subject to the provisions of the laws of the State of Ohio relating to common carriers. 3. That during year 1910 he shipped at separate times several lots of leaf tobacco from Brookville, Ohio, and was charged the eight cents per 100 pounds rate. That the shipment complained of was in every way identical as to procedure. The car was ordered in the same way, loaded at same place, same agent applied to for bill of lading, but when shipped to destination (Carlisle) he was charged and paid the rate of ten cents. That claim was made to railroad for discrepancy and refused and complainant was informed that this particular shipment was over Pennsylvania Lines and the shipments that he had previously received the eight-cent rate on was via D. & U. R. R. If the complainant's attention had been called to this at the time he applied for bill-oflading same would have been refused. Notice is also called to the fact that the agent did not insert the rate of freight on the bill of lading. DESCRIPTION. R. R. Claim No. 32,151. Date of claim-Sept. 2, 1910. Character-Overcharge. Date of shipment-May 16, 1910. Consignor-W. T. Estes. Description-Fifty-six cases leaf tobacco, 16,500 pounds. Wherefore, the complainant prays that the aforesaid defendant company be required to answer the charges herein, and that after due hearing and investigation an order be made commanding the said railway company to refund the overcharge, and for such other and further order as the Commission may deem necessary and just in the premises. FINDING AND ORDER. This case came on this day for consideration, by the Commission, upon the complaint, the answer of defendant, the original papers filed herein, affidavits and other forms of evidence submitted; and the Commission, being fully advised in the premises, find that the bill of lading upon which the shipment in question moved, and upon which the overcharge was alleged to have been made, was signed by the consignor, the complainant herein, who is also the consignee. The Commission further find that the said consignor, complainant and consignee having so signed said bill of lading, thereby directed the routing of said shipment, and is, therefore, precluded from claiming an overcharge by reason of a higher rate prevailing over the route so designated in the bill of lading, than prevailed over another route, available to, but not used by said consignor. The Commission further find the claim of overcharge is, therefore, not well founded and this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice. 114. The Mead Pulp and Paper Company, Complainant, versus The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, Defendant. Decided February 18, 1911. The complainant says: 1. The Mead Pulp and Paper Company is a corporation authorized under the laws of the State of Ohio, located at Chillicothe, Ohio, and engaged in the manufacture of wood pulp and paper. 2. That the above named railway company is a common carrier, engaged in the transportation of persons and property by railroad, between points in the State of Ohio, and that as such common carrier said defendant is subject to the provisions of the laws of the State of Ohio relating to common carriers. 3. That during the month of May, 1910, there was assessed against complainant the sum of $247 by the defendant for car service, and during the month of June, 1910, the sum of $221 for car service. Of these two statements, the one of May, or $247, has been paid by the complainant. That during the months of May and June there was constructed. at the plant of the claimant a new coal trestle and track, which deprived the complainant of the use of one of its side tracks upon which it had heretofore handled its coal and waste wood shipments, and that on account of uncalled-for delay on the part of the railroad company in constructing said coal trestle and track, the complainant was forced |