This was a claim for damage to shipment of meal which was rejected at destination and returned to shippers. The Commission advised claimants that it had no jurisdiction over claims of this character, but at the same time took the matter up with the railroad company. The defendant company reported result of its investigation to the Commission and declined to admit of liability on the claim. Papers were returned to claimants with advice that their only recourse was a suit in the courts. FILE NO. 8311. Petition for authority to close Com- WRIGHTSVILLE & TENNILLE RAILROAD. The Commission advised the petitioning company that no action could be taken on petition without giving notice to all parties at interest in the matter, and requested said company to furnish it with names of such parties. No further response. FILE NO. 8312. ATLANTA & WEST POINT RAILROAD Co. } Petition for authority to discontinue flag stops at Fairview and Cannonville, Ga. Filed in office August 31, 1908. Copy of petition furnished to postmasters of the two stations named, but no response received from them. FILE NO. 8313. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF GEORGIA. } Request for reports from railway companies. Filed in office August 31, 1908. The record in this case covers answers of the various railway companies in Georgia to order of the Commission, requiring all of said companies to make report to the Commission as to all attorneys and surgeons to whom free transportation was issued. This was a claim for overcharge on shipments from Louisville, Ky. to Athens, Ga. The Commission advised the claimants that inasmuch as the shipments were interstate, the claim was beyond its control. The matter, however, was taken up with the railway company but no disposition effected. This was a claim for loss of one bale of sheeting. Claim taken up by the Commission with the defendant railway company and same paid on December 15, 1908. This was a claim for overcharge on shipment of lumber from Jasper, Fla., to Greenville, Ga., account failure of the railway companies to observe rate quotation made claimants on said shipment prior to its movement. Upon investigation the Commission found that the published rate as filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission was applied to the shipment and there was, therefore, no overcharge. As to the failure of the railway companies to observe the rate quotation referred to, the Commission advised the claimants that their only recourse would be in the nature of a claim for damage, if damage was sustained, and that the courts alone could handle such a claim. Complainants complained that they were unable to secure cars for loading at Beards Creek, Ga., a station on the Georgia Coast & Piedmont Railroad. Matter taken up with the defendant company and cars furnished promptly. FILE NO. 8318. CITIZENS OF BARNETT, GA., vs. GEORGIA RAILROAD COMPANY. Opening public road crossing. Honorable M. L. Felts filed with the Commission copy of petition, which petitioners had forwarded to the Georgia Railroad and the county Commissioners of Warren county. The Commission advised petitioners that matters of this kind did not come within the jurisdiction of this Board, but the question was taken up with the Georgia Railroad. On September 3rd, the Commission was furnished with a copy of the railroad company's communication to Mr. W. E. English, representing petitioners, in which said company gave its reasons for declining to open the desired public crossing. This was a claim for $2.50 account damage to stove. The Commission advised claimants that while it had no jurisdiction over claims for damage, this matter would be taken up with the defendant railway company. The defendant railway company, after investigation, reported that the invoice value of this stove was $22.50, that claimants sold the stove for $43.00, but claimed that damage to handle of stove door prevented them from selling stove at the retail price, namely $45.00. The railway company declined to admit of liability for damage, inasmuch as the claimants sold stove at 100-per cent. profit. Copy of the answer of the railway company furnished the claimants, and no further response received from them. FILE NO. 8320. WAY & COMPANY, vs. MACON, DUBLIN & SAVANNAH RAILROAD,, Removal of side track. Filed in office September 3, 1908. Complainants complained that the defendant railroad company had removed side track previously located at complaintants' mill site. While the Commission was investigating said matter, the complainants requested that no action be taken as they had received assurance from the railroad company that the track would be re-laid as soon as practicable. FILE NO. 8321. W. J. MCNAUGHTON, COVENA, GA. Information furnished September 4th. Request for information relative to rate on shipment from Elkhart, Ind. to Covena, Ga. Filed in office September 3, 1908. This claim, amounting to $15.00, was filed, account of delay in placing three cars consigned to complainants at Savannah. Upon investigation, the Commission found that penalty was due only for $12.00 instead of $15.00 as claimed, and the defendant railway company requested to pay claimants said amount of $12.00. Commission advised by the defendant railway company, on November 10, 1908, that claim would be paid, in said amount. FILE NO. 8324. E. E. LOWE LUMBER COMPANY, vs. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Claim for penalty demurrage. This claim was filed account delay by the defendant railway company in giving claimants notice of the arrival of shipment. Notice was served by the Commission on the defendant railway company to show cause, if any it could, why the claim should not be paid. Said company declined to voucher claim upon the grounds that the notice was delayed because of the congestion of the yards, which made it impracticable to weigh car and hence notice could not be given consignee until the weight of the car could be ascertained and upon the further ground that claimants sustained no damage by reason of the delay. Upon consideration of the response of the railway company, the Commission was of the opinion that sufficient cause had not been shown to relieve it of the penalty claimed and the Special Attorney of the Commission, after investigation of the records in said case, recommended to the Commission that said matter be turned over to the Governor for direction as to whether or not suit should be brought against the defendant railway company as provided for by the Act of August 23, 1907. This was a claim for loss, shipment of shoes from Auburn, N. Y. to Willacoochee, Ga. Matter taken up with the defendant railroad company and claim paid September 14, 1908. Complainants complained of express charges collected on shipment of silver money from Fairfax, S. C., to Savannah, Ga. Upon investigation the Commission found that an overcharge of $1.00 had been collected, and upon handling the matter with the Southern Express Company same was promptly refunded. CITIZENS OF RALEIGH, Ga., vs. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH Co. FILE NO. 8328. Discontinuing telegraph service. Upon investigation, the Commission found that the Western Union Telegraph Company maintained telegraphic service at Raleigh, Ga., by employing the railroad agent to act also as telegraph agent and that the railroad company discontinued its agency station at said point, and requested the telegraph company to disconnect its wires with said office. FILE NO. 8329. W. P. SPARKS, vs. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY CO. Rates on cotton bagging. Filed in office September 7, 1908. Complainant sold some cotton bagging to Hammack Rish Sons Company, Edison, Ga., based on Savannah price, plus freight rate from Savannah to Edison. Hammack Rish Sons Co., had, previously, made inquiry of the Commission as to the correct rate on cotton bagging from Savannah to Edison, and were advised that the rate was 33 cents per hundred pounds. In billing Hammack Rish Sons Co., for the bagging, Mr. W. P. Sparks, assessed freight charges at 36 cents per hundred pounds, as per supplement 1 to Central of Georgia Railway Bagging and Tie Tariff, the rate which Mr. Sparks was required to pay. Investigation, by the Commission disclosed the fact that the defendant |