Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

to handle its shipments without the usual facilities, and the result was that car service charges accrued on these two commodities, namely, coal and waste wood, to the amount of $131 ($95 on waste wood and $36 on coal) which would not otherwise have accrued had the complainant had the use of its regular facilities for the handling of its shipments.

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 said railway company to refund to the Mead Pulp and Paper Company that portion of the car service paid in May which accrued on waste wood shipments and on coal shipments, and to cancel that portion of the car service. charges of June, 1910, which are assessed against the complainant on waste wood shipments and coal shipments, and for such other and further order as the Commission may deem necessary and just in the premises.

FINDING AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.

This case came on this day for hearing upon the pleadings and the testimony. Upon consideration thereof the Commission, being fully advised in the premises, finds that it has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the complaint, nor of the questions and issues joined by the pleadings.

This case is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

115. W. L. Ware, Complainant, versus The Cincinnati, Milford and Loveland Traction Company, Defendant. Decided March 13, 1911.

The complainant says:

I. That he is a farmer residing near Newtonsville, Clermont County, Ohio.

2. That the above named traction company is a common carrier, engaged in the transportation of persons and property by traction 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 July 9, 1910, he delivered to said The Cincinnati, Milford and Loveland Traction Company at its station at Newtonsville, Clermont County, Ohio, one hundred and twenty bales of hay to be shipped to Cincinnati, Ohio, and received a bill of lading for same.

That said The Cincinnati, Milford and Loveland Traction Company agreed prior to July 9, 1910, to accept said hay and transport all of it on July 10, 1910, to Cincinnati, Ohio.

That said traction company did not transport all of said hay on July 10th, 1910, as agreed, but carried only 20 bales, part of the balance, to wit, 100 bales, were transported on July 12th and 13th, 1910.

That the said hay, after it was delivered to said traction company got wet by the carelessness and negligence of said company in not having facilities to keep it dry, that said hay was damaged and rendered less valuable by becoming wet, as follows:

20 bales at 10 cents each bale...... 100 bales at 35 cents each bale..

Total damage.....

.$ 2 00

35 00

$37 00

That complainant on July 22d, 1910, made a formal claim and demand in writing for the payment of said loss on said 120 bales of hay caused by the careless and negligent handling of said hay, but that said traction company wholly ignored complainant's claim.

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 said traction company to pay to said complainant, W. L. Ware, the sum of $37 as damages for said loss, and for such other and further order as the Commission may deem necessary and just in the premises.

ENTRY.

Complainant having received and accepted from defendant the sum of $26.59 in full satisfaction of the claim herein, this case is therefore dismissed without further record.

116. The City of Dayton, State of Ohio, Complainant, versus The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company and The Peoples Railway Company, Defendants. Decided February 23, 1911.

FINDING AND ORDER.

Installation of trolley guards at First Street, Keowee Street and Leo Street, in City of Dayton, Ohio, ordered.

This matter came on for investigation upon complaint of the City of Dayton, by its Solicitor, Frank S. Breene, alleging that First

Street between Keowee Street and Meigs Street, Keowee Street between Kiser Street and Harman Avenue, and Leo Street between Webster Street and Troy Street, in said city, where the tracks of the defendant, The Peoples Railway Company, operating a street railway, intersect and cross at grade the tracks of the defendant, The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, a steam railroad, are dangerous crossings and that public safety requires protection thereat by the installation of trolley guards over the trolley wires of said Peoples Railway Company, and also by the installation of derailing. devices in the tracks of said Peoples Railway Company on either side of said steam railway tracks, the answer of the defendant, The Peoples Railway Company, thereto and the evidence. Notice having been given to the railway companies defendant, as required by law, of the time and place of hearing said complaint, the Commission proceeded to fully investigate said complaint at the time and place fixed for said investigation. Whereupon, by agreement of counsel and consent of the Commission, the question of the installation of derailing devices, as prayed for, was eliminated from the complaint, the defendant The Peoples Railway Company admitting the necessity for the installation of trolley guards, but demanding that the expense of the installation and maintenance thereof be apportioned equally between the railway companies defendant.

The Commission, after hearing the evidence and being fully advised in the premises, find, that public safety requires protection at said crossings by the installation and maintenance thereat of trolley guards over each of the trolley wires of said defendant, The Peoples Railway Company, and that the cost of construction and maintenance. of the same should be borne wholly by said defendant, The Peoples Railway Company. It is, therefore,

ORDERED, That said defendant, The Peoples Railway Company, shall within thirty days from the receipt of this order, construct and erect over its wires at said crossings, inverted metallic troughs known as trolley guards, and that the same shall be so constructed and thereafter maintained that in the event of the trolley wheel leaving or becoming detached from the trolley wire, or wires, said trolley wheel will come in contact with said trolley trough, or guard, and the car or cars, will receive sufficient electric current by contact of said trolley wheel with said metallic trough, or guard, to enable the car to proceed across the tracks of said defendant, The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, to a point of safety. Said troughs, or guards, shall be constructed after the most approved pattern; the expense of installing the same and the maintenance thereof shall be borne by said defendant, The Peoples Railway Company.

117. The Village of Ottawa, Complainant, versus The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, Defendant. Decided June 22, 1911. D. M. Bailey, for Complainant; Morrison R. Waite, for Defendant.

The complainant says:

That it is a municipal corporation duly organized under the laws of Ohio, and is situate in section twenty-one, twenty-two, twentyseven and twenty-eight, in town one north, range seven east, in Ottawa Township, Putnam County, Ohio; that it is an incorporated village with more than 2,000 population.

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.

That said defendant, The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, is operating a railroad through said village, extending from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Toledo, Ohio, and operates over its said track locomotives, cars and trains through said plaintiff village. That said defendant also operates through said village a railroad extending from the city of Findlay, Ohio, to the city of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, which said latter railroad was formerly called the Findlay, Ft. Wayne and Western Railroad. And plaintiff says that about one-half of the population of the village and about one-half of the business section thereof is located on each side of said first above described railroad; that during the day time a great many people, teams, vehicles and other conveyances are compelled to cross the main line of said Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway on practically two streets of said village, to wit, Main Street and Third Street. Plaintiff further avers that about one hundred cars daily are transferred from the branch line of said railroad operated by said defendant and known as the Findlay, Ft. Wayne and Western Railroad to the main line thereof; that in making the transfers of said cars and in doing all other switching necessary on either of said above described lines of railroad, said defendant operates its engines, cars and trains over and across said Main Street and said Third Street many times a day to the extent that the noise from the operating of said locomotives and said trains. and the blockading of said Main Street and said Third Street during said switching becomes a nuisance to said plaintiff and the inhabitants thereof and prevents them from crossing said railroad when they desire to do so because the said crossings on account of said switching are often blocked and held by said defendant for a period of from ten

to thirty minutes at a time, to the great annoyance and inconvenience of the inhabitants of said plaintiff.

Plaintiff further avers that said defendant, The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, is constantly using the main track of the Findlay, Ft. Wayne and Western Railroad as a passing track for its freight trains; that a large number of the south-bound freight trains on its main track, when compelled to pass another train at Ottawa, back into and upon the connecting track between said two railroads and thence upon the main track of the Findlay, Ft. Wayne and Western Railroad, and remain in that position until again ordered out on the main line of the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway; that while such freight trains are so standing on the Findlay, Ft. Wayne and Western Railroad, they block and obstruct four or five street crossings in said village and often hold the same for a period of thirty minutes or more.

And plaintiff further avers that some months ago the officials of the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company made a proposition to this plaintiff that if it would raise the sum of $1,000 with which to purchase the necessary real estate, said defendant. would thereupon construct yards without the business district of said. village and do all its necessary switching in said yards so to be constructed and thus abate the nuisance and annoyance to said village and its inhabitants hereinbefore complained of. That plaintiff complied with the request of said railway company, raised the required amount of money on subscriptions and duly tendered the same to said defendant, but thereupon said defendant repudiated said proposition, refused to accept said money so tendered and refused to construct yards as it had theretofore proposed to do.

Plaintiff furthers avers that the scales used by said defendants at the village of Ottawa on which it weighs its cars are situated on the line of the Findlay, Ft. Wayne and Western Railroad and is near the Catholic Church and Catholic School, which abut upon the street upon which said railroad is located. That long trains of cars are weighed on said scales which require the constant shifting of the same, to the great annoyance of said school and church.

And plaintiff further avers that the south end of the connecting track connecting said two railroads is tapped in to the main line of the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway at a point about equally distant from Main Street and Third Street in said village, and that in transferring the cars from one road to the other, all the shifting and switching thereof is over and across Main Street and Third Street in said village.

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 said railway

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »