spondent's road had set fire to hay belonging to the respondent, and asked damages in the sum of $721.00. The complainant was notified that the Board had no jurisdiction over claims for damage, and the case was dismissed. No. 51. 103 citizens of Sutton VS. The B. & M. R. R. These parties complained of the insufficiency of the depot accommodations furnished by the respondent at Sutton. A copy of the complaint was served on the respondent. The company acknowledged the truth of the complaint, and stated "that it hoped to be able the next year to give them a better depot." A copy of the answer was forwarded to the complainants, with a request that the Board be informed as to the wishes of the complainants in the matter. No response being received to this communication, the Board addressed another one to the complainants, and requested that it be informed as to whether the complainants desired to press the matter. No response having been received to either of the above letters, the Board dismissed the case. This complaint involved the same matters as No. 53, and the two were consolidated. No. 53. Joseph Johnson vs. U. P. Ry. Co. The complaint alleged that the respondent was careless and negligent in the transportation of a horse power from Lincoln to Norfolk, and that the depot and shipping facilities at Norfolk were insufficient, and the company had overcharged the complainant for the shipment of the horse power. The company denied the allegations of the complaint. At the hearing, the company agreed to refund to the complainant the sum of $24.72. After investigation, the Board decided that the company had used due diligence in transporting the horse power from Lincoln to Norfolk, and that the facilities furnished shippers and others at Norfolk are adequate. It was therefore ordered that the complaint be dismissed upon payment of the overcharge of $24.72 to the complainant. No. 54. F. G. Wilke VS. The B. & M. R. R. Mr. Wilke complained that the company had neglected to place highway crossings on its new branch from Blue Hill to Holdrege in good repair, and invoked the aid of the Board to accomplish such result. After some correspondence the company notified the Board that the crossings had been placed in good repair. A copy of the communication was mailed to Mr. Wilke, and he was requested to state whether matters had been arranged to his satisfaction, since which no word has been received from him, and the Board believes that all is satisfactory to him. No. 55. Charles Philpot VS. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. Mr. Philpot complained that the respondent had discriminated against him by charging him $19 per car on stock from Weeping Water to Omaha, and only charging others $15. The company replied that this apparent discrimination was an error on the part of its agent at Weeping Water, and refunded the difference between the two rates named. The complainant expressed his satisfaction with the action of the company, and the complaint was dismissed. No. 56. A. A. Thompson vs. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. The complaint averred that the respondent failed to furnish complainant with cars in which to load potatoes for shipment, and that the agent refused to give any explanation for such failure. The attention of the company was called to the matter, and it agreed to remedy the cause of complaint. After waiting some time, the Board addressed Mr. Thompson, and requested that he inform it whether cars were being furnished him. He replied saying that he had no further fault to find, and the complaint was dismissed. No. 57. A. H. Lee et al. VS. U. P. Ry. Co. The complaint in this cause alleged that the U. P. Ry. Co. had caused a trestle work to be filled east of the Elkhorn river, and about one mile east of the village, and had caused its grade to be raised about sixteen feet, whereby the water in the Elkhorn river, in times of a freshet, were caused to overflow the town site of the village of Waterloo. The answer of the company admitted the filling of the trestle and raising the grade, but denied that the overflow of the town site was caused by it. The Board took testimony of witnesses, and made a personal examination of the country, and recommended the opening of the grade so as to permit a free passage of the water. Afterwards, the respondent filed a request for a modification of the order so that the company might be left free to adopt such measures as should remedy the difficulty complained of. The order was therefore modified as asked. As yet, the company has not complied with the recommendation of the Board. No. 58. David Foresman vs. B. & M. R. R. The complaint alleged that the respondent refused to maintain an agent at Ruby station, although a depot building had been erected there' recited the population of the place, number of business firms and character of business enterprises represented, etc., and asked that the Board compel the company to place an agent at that point. After investigation, a recommendation was made that the request of the complainant be granted. The company notified the Board that it would open the station, and put an agent in charge. No. 59. John P. Martin vs. B. & M. R. R. The complaint averred that the respondent refused to erect and maintain a station and necessary shipping facilities at Algernon, and set forth statistics as to population, business, etc. The company made answer to the complaint and denied the necessity for a station at that point, alleging that the people in that locality were well served in that regard, the company having a station at Mason, three and onehalf miles east, and at Ansley, two and one-half miles west of Algernon. The Board investigated the matter, and decided that the claims of the respondent were fully justified by the facts, and dismissed the complaint. No. 59. J. A. Lawrence and L. C. Lawrence VS. B. & M. R. R. Messrs. Lawrence complained that the grade of the respondent's road through their land was so constructed as to cause water to overflow their premises. The company was informed of the matter, and later on, the Board was advised that the matter had been settled by the parties in interest. No. 60. P. A. Bartlett VS. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. The complaint alleged that the rate on live stock from Weeping Water to Omaha, over the defendant's road, was $19 per car, a distance of 40 miles, while the rate from Weeping Water to Kansas City is $32 per car, for a much greater distance. That the rate to Omaha is excessive and unreasonable. The Board set a day for a hearing of the matter, and after investigation recommended that the rate on live stock from Weeping Water to Omaha be reduced to $15 per car. The company complied with the recommendation, and the complaint was dismissed. No. 61. F. Megendoht VS. C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. The complaint in this case alleged that the company had taken out a public crossing near the complainant's land, and asked that the Board require the company to replace it. The company agreed to do so, and Mr. Megendolt notified the Board that it had been done to his satisfaction. No. 62. B. F. Garner et al. VS. B. & M. R. R. The complainants charged that the approach to the switch at Hickman, at the point where cars are set to be unloaded, was in an unsafe condition, and could not be approached with teams, to the inconvenience of shippers. The company notified the Board that instructions. had been given to proper authorities to repair the dump as soon as frost was out of the ground. |