Covington v. St. Francis County
| Decision Date | 16 December 1905 |
| Parties | COVINGTON v. ST. FRANCIS COUNTY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Francis Court; HANCE N. HUTTON, Judge; affirmed.
Affirmed.
N. W Norton, for appellant.
P. R Andrews, for appellee.
At the January term, 1904, Lucy Covington applied to the county court of St. Francis County, and asked that her license for operating a public ferry across St. Francis River, at Madison, be renewed. This license was granted on the 4th of January, 1904, and a $ 500 bond required of her, which she gave, and the court fixed the rate of toll to be charged as follows:
Footman, each way, 2 1/2 cents.
Man and horse, each way, 5 cents.
1-horse vehicle, each way, 10 cents.
2-horse vehicle, each way, 12 1/2 cents.
4-horse log wagon (not loaded with logs), each way, 20 cents.
Cattle, 10 head or under, each way, 5 cents.
Cattle, over 10 head, each way, 3 cents.
Stock escaping from the overflow shall be ferried free of charge; and said ferryman shall be allowed double the above rates after 8 p. m.
From the fixing of this schedule of rates, the appellant, Lucy Covington, appealed to the circuit court.
In the circuit court the judgment of the county court was affirmed, with the exception that appellant was allowed to charge for stock escaping from the overflow the same as in other cases.
On the trial in the circuit court, Peter Covington testified that Lucy Covington, his wife, was in possession of the land on the other side of the river, where the ferry crosses, and had been for a number of years; that fair rates for the ferry would be 25 cents round trip for a buggy, footman each way 5 cents; that the river at an average stage is 150 yards wide. That 20 cents a round trip would be right for a man and horse, 25 cents for a one-horse vehicle round trip; that a two-horse vehicle ought to be 30 cents round trip; that a four-horse wagon ought to be 50 cents round trip; that cattle ought to be 5 cents in any quantity; that 75 cents would be right for 4-horse log wagon (not loaded) round trip. That it was not right to have to move stock in the overflow for nothing, for you have to have four or five men to help you, and the boat is hard to handle in the current, and a man has to wade to handle the business. That for the past year the gross receipts were $ 980, and expenses $ 660, and that was at charges, he says, that were about right; that cutting them down to the present rate will make $ 180 or $ 200 difference. Witness here corrects his testimony, and says that receipts were $ 890, instead of $ 980; that he pays a man $ 1 a day to run it; that he kept a record of all receipts and expenses; that, besides paying a man $ 1 a day, he boards him; that he paid for a mule $ 50 damages.
George Stokes testified for appellant that he was the ferryman, and had kept the books about the ferry; that he had the preceding year by days; that the ferry had taken in $ 890.05; that the expense account was $ 313 to him, and $ 52 for a ferryman to run it on Sundays, and besides Covington boarded him. On Saturdays he would have to pay a man 25 cents an hour to help him; that the total expense during the year was $ 617, for everything, not including his board and that his board was worth $ 10 a month.
The appellee then introduced Ed Berry, who said he was familiar with ferries, and with the Lucy Covington ferry, and the rates fixed by the county court. He was then asked what he thought of the rate fixed by the county court, and he answered: "I think it very reasonable, and propose to take it at that." Appellant objects to this answer, and, being overruled, saved an exception. The witness then proceeded to say that it was a county road, and had been for several years.
Q. "And you say you propose to take it at that?"
Objection by applicant overruled, and exception saved.
A. "I will take it right now, and am willing to put in a boat in a week."
Peter Covington, recalled, said he had been running the ferry since 1887; that he had never run under these rates...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Duval County
... ... Dec. 83; Robinson v. Lamb, ... 126 N.C. 492, 36 S.E. 29. See, also, Wilterding v. Green, ... 4 Idaho, 773, 45 P. 134; Covington v. St. Francis ... County, 77 Ark. 258, 91 S.W. 186; Troutman v ... Smith, 105 Ky. 231, 48 S.W. 1084; Brymer v. Butler ... Water Co., 179 ... ...
-
Graysonia-Nashville Lumber Co. v. Carroll
...8 Ark. 510, 571; 9 Ark. 389; 31 Ark. 252; 37 Ark. 580; 58 Ark. 277; 59 Ark. 503; 60 Ark. 26; 74 Ark. 104; 78 Ark. 381; 54 Ark. 336; 77 Ark. 258; Id. 567; Id. Id. 109; 79 Ark. 225; 84 Ark. 373; 87 Ark. 471; 90 Ark. 104. Her declaration would have been competent evidence against her, had she ......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Berry
... ... that the court considered such evidence only as was ... competent. Covington v. St. Francis Co., 77 ... Ark. 258, 91 S.W. 186 ... 6 ... Appellant asks ... ...
- Helena v. Miller