IN BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, CONCORD, N. H., March 22, 1884. Upon due notification, the commissioners met the petitioners and the representatives of the railroad company at Berlin Falls on the 19th instant. The complaint is, that neither the freight nor passenger station is large enough to permit the proper transaction of the business of the public with the railroad at this point; that the approach to the passenger station is dangerous to persons going to or from the passenger trains, and that neither building is in proper repair. The passenger station is located between the main track and a side track, upon which freight trains are sometimes standing when passenger trains are due, the only access to the station from the business side of the town being over said side track. It was admitted that when the buildings were erected they were large enough for the business then transacted at the station. The population of Berlin then was about 560. It now reaches 1,700 or thereabouts, and the business of the town shows a far greater ratio of increase than the population. It was clearly demonstrated to the commissioners that larger buildings were required, and that the danger to passengers going to and from the station as now located should not longer exist. The representatives of the railroad company present at the hearing readily acceded to the recommendation of the commissioners that the buildings be enlarged to meet the increased traffic of the place, and that the passenger station be located so as to avoid the crossing of a track to reach it by the usual and prescribed route. We are assured that the above changes will be made by the railroad company as soon as the season permits. Further proceedings upon the petition are therefore suspended for the present. By the Board, E. B. S. SANBORN, Clerk. IV. FOREST ROAD CROSSING IN HANCOCK. To the Railroad Commissioners of the State of New Hampshire: An application has been made to us, selectmen of the town of Hancock, by thirty or more legal voters of said town, requesting us to cause a more suitable crossing over the Manchester & Keene Railroad at a point where it crosses the Forest road; and we request you, as railroad commissioners, to appear at your earliest convenience, and make an examination of said crossing, giving us reasonable notice of the time you will appear. Hancock, April 15, 1884. WILLIAM F. SYMONDS, ADOLPHUS G. FOSTER, Selectmen of Hancock. IN BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, CONCORD, N. H., June 19, 1884. In the matter of the complaint of the selectmen and citizens of Hancock in regard to the crossing of the Forest road, on the Manchester & Keene Railroad, in said town, this board visited the ground in connection with a representative of the Boston & Lowell Railroad. After an examination of the crossing, it was substantially agreed by the parties in interest that the approaches to the crossing should be graded to the satisfaction of the town authorities. On this assurance, further proceedings on the part of this board are suspended. By the Board, E. B. S. SANBORN, Clerk. V. FARM CROSSING IN DANBURY. To the Railroad Commissioners for the State of New Hampshire: Respectfully represents Samuel P. Haskins, of Danbury, that the Northern Railroad passes through his farm; that a large part of his tillage and mowing land is on the westerly or the other side of said railroad from his buildings, consequently he has to cross said railroad frequently many times daily; that there is a deep cut all the way through my farm; that I am obliged to cross another man's land and cross said railroad about twelve rods from my line; the company keep up gates at the crossing, but I have kept up bars on my line, which makes me a great deal of trouble every time I cross with a team to keep the gates and bars up; that I am liable to a prosecution for trespass every time I cross the land adjoining to get across said railroad, and have been forbidden to cross at all; that I have been informed that when said railroad was built the dirt was carted out and dumped in such a way as to leave a good chance for a bridge, and it was the intention to cause a bridge to be built there; that if he had a right to cross the adjoining land there is no cattle guards at said crossing, which makes it very inconvenient to drive cattle across said railroad; that the crossing is a poor one at the best; that I have frequently called on the officers of said company to give me a better chance to cross said railroad, but they have neglected to do anything about it; that he respectfully asks that you will give the matter your earliest attention, as I want to be teaming across said road soon, and make such order thereon as you may think that would be just and right in the premises. SAMUEL P. HASKINS. Danbury, April 22, 1884. IN BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, A CONCORD, N. H., June 19, 1884. Samuel P. Haskins, of Danbury, petitions this board, complaining that his farm-crossing is inadequate, unprovided with cattle-guards, and inconvenient of access. The approach to the crossing now used by Mr. Haskins is on land of a neighbor, adjoing his own, and has been used by him for seventeen years, and is the same as was in use when he purchased the farm. year and a half ago he was forbidden to use the approach to the crossing, but only for the purpose, it would appear, of preventing Mr. Haskins from acquiring any prescriptive rights. He has not been molested in the use of the crossing or in access to it. The original crossing, constituting an additional crossing for the owners of this and the adjoining farm on the north, still remains and can be used. Mr. Haskins claims that it was the early intention to connect the severed parts of his farm by a bridge, but no evidence was offered to support the claim. This board cannot agree that it would be reasonable in the present situation to require the railroad to construct a bridge, as it would be attended with an expense disproportional to the advantage, and is unnecessary as long as the present crossings can be utilized as they have been since the opening of the road |