Jasper County Democrat, Volume 10, Number 13, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 June 1907 — INTERURBAN RIGHTS [ARTICLE]

INTERURBAN RIGHTS

Much Divided Supreme Court Decides What They Are in -s. L Part in Cities. NOT AN ADDITIONAL SERVITUDE , ________________ Can Ran Without Penalty as Long as They Rnn Only as Street (Kb.. Cars—State News. ,j

Indianapolis, June 27. —The interurbnn railroads won in the supreme court on the main proposition that the use of the streets by their cars la no more an “additional servitude” than their use by the city street cars, as long as they are operated within the city like street cars. But the court holds that whatever special damages they inflict on adjoining property by running so fast as to shake down, houses, or by the improper operation of their cars in other respects, must be paid. Unanimous Only on One Point. All of the judges express the opinion that interurban cars cannot be excluded from the streets by abutting owners, the owners having a right, at most, to recover damages. The decision was by a majority only of the five judges, two of them contending that the mere nse of the streets by laterurban cars gives adjoining owners & right to damages as in the case of steam railroads. The fact that “freight” or express cars are run by the interurban railroads is discussed at length, but is held to make no difference in their right to use the streets. Two Justices In " Agreement.

The court reversed the judgment sustaining the demurrer of the Union Traction company to the complaint of Lottie Kinsey, asking damages for the operation of interurban cars in College avenue in Indianapolis. An opinion of forty-three typewritten pages by Judge Jordan is.concurred In by Judge Montgomery, but does not meet the approval of the other three judges. Three Other Opinions Written. Judge Hadley writes an opinion of twenty-four pages, and Judge Glllett another of eleven pages, while Judge Monks “concurs in the conclusion of Judges Hadley and Gillett that the running of interurban cars In the city streets is not an additional burden and that appellant is not entitled to recover therefor: and also in their conclusion that there are allegations in the complaint which sufficiently charge a special injury to appellant’s real estate caused by operating said road under the rule In the Mordhurst case.”

PUKE POOD LAW HITS THEM Batchers Who Use “Freeze ’Em" Are Fined—Flies Cost » Restaurant Keeper Ten Dollars. Elwood, Ind., June 27. Professor Frank Owen, of the Frankfort schools, now deputy state food inspector, came in Elwood and caused the arrest of three men on the charge of violating the pure food law, in that they were using a preparation known to butchers as “freeze ’em” in Hamburger. sausage, etc. B. F. Keller was flned'ffTo and costs on a plea of guilty. Peter I>owns was fined on two charges,and FredTJlnnder was charged witli selling impure Hamburger and assessed a nominal fine on bis plea of guilty. Joseph Burtanger, a restaurant keeper, was fined $lO for exposing his pies to the counter flies. Owens went from here to Tipton, where he inspected five butcher shops, and caught four of them using “freeze ’em.” They pleaded guilty and paid $lO each.