of the Dixon Branch of the Illinois Central Railroad Company at grade in the town of Clay, Webster county, Kentucky, and it being represented that these two companies could not reach an agreement as to the manner of said crossing, the Commission ordered that said Morganfield & Atlanta Railroad Company be permitted to construct its line of railroad to cross the track of said Illinois Central Railroad at the designated point.

CITIZENS OF BARDSTOWN, Ky., Complainants,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Inadequate depot accommodations at Bardstown, Ky.

The citizens of Bardstown, Ky., filed a petition with the Commission complaining of the inadequate depot facilities at that point and on taking the matter up with the defendant company's officials they agreed to make the necessary improvements at the earliest possible date and the matter is now pending.

CITIZENS OF CAmpbellsville, KY., Complainants.

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate rates on all commodities from points in Kentucky to Campbellsville, Ky.

This complaint being of a general nature no special action was taken with reference to it, pending the decision of the Federal Court on the order of the Commission directing that the rates in Kentucky be materially reduced, effective August 1, 1906. No further action can be taken in the matter until the Federal Court renders its decision.

WHEELER-HOLDEN Co., BUFFALO, N. Y., Complainant,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Insufficient car supply.

Complaint is made that the defendant company is furnishing an insufficient number of cars to move cross-ties from its Lexington Di

vision Stations. This matter, as well as quite a number of others of a similar nature, is being investigated and is, therefore, continued.

OTIS TINGLE, ENGLISH, KY., Complainant.

VS.

LOUISVILLE & Nashville RaiLROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Overcharge on oil from Cincinnati.

This complaint was investigated and defendant admitted that an overcharge existed and agreed to refund the amount as soon as they were furnished with expense bills. The complaint is therefore continued.

J. M. Ross, Complainant.

VS.

KENTUCKY & TENNESSE RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Failure to publish joint rates on coal from Kentucky & Tennessee railway stations.

At a meeting of the Interstate Commerce Commission, this complaint-being of an interstate nature was taken up and by agreement of the defendant company the rates complained of were published and the matter was dismissed settled.

CITIZENS OF GREENWOOD, KY., Complainants.

VS.

CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY Co., Defendants.

Subject: Petition to move and remodel depot at Greenwood, Ky.

This complaint was investigated and at a conference with the defendant railway company it was agreed that the station should be moved and re-modeled as requested, which was done, and the complaint was dismissed settled.

J. L. SUMMERS, RICHMOND, KY., Complainant.

VS.

OHIO & KENTUCKY RAILWAY Co., Defendant.

Subject: Checking merchandise as baggage.

Investigation developed the fact that the baggage in question consisted of articles other than wearing apparel and personal effects, and as there are the only articles that can properly be termed baggage, complainant was so advised. There being no further prosecution of the matter, the complaint is dismissed.

.

BEATTYVILLE COAL CO., RICHMOND, KY., Complainant.

vs.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., AND LOUISVILLE & ATLANTIC

RAILROAD CO., Defendants.

Subject: Failure to do interline switching at Richmond, Ky.

After a full hearing of this complaint an order was entered requiring each of the defendant companies to switch to industries located on its line, cars reaching Richmond, Ky., over the other line.

WHEELER-HOLDEN Co., BUFFALO, N. Y., Complainant.

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD, CO., Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate rate on cross-ties from stations on Knoxville Division of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad to Cincinnati, O.

This being an interstate question, it was taken up through the Interstate Commerce Commission, and by agreement, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company published the same rate on cross-ties from Knoxville Division stations to Cincinnati as was applied on lumber. This being satisfactory to complainants the matter was dismissed.

J. D. GOODLOE, WHITE'S STATION, KY., Complainant.

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD, Co., Defendant.

Subject: Failure to maintain agent at White's Station.

This complaint was taken up at a meeting, of the Commission held in the city of Richmond, Ky., on the 5th day of February, 1906. After a full hearing the defendant company was directed to re-open and place an agent at this station, which was done.

J. ED. BLANTON & Co., RICHMOND, KY., Complainants,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., AND LOUISVILLE & ATLANTIC RAILROAD CO., Defendants.

Subject: Failure to do interline switching at Richmond, Ky.

After a full hearing of this matter, an order was entered requiring each of the defendant companies to switch to industries located on its line, cars reaching Richmond, Ky., over the other line.

JAS. L. YOUNG, CALIFORNIA, KY., Complainant.

VS.

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY Co., Defendant.

Subject: Inadequate accommodations for passengers on local trains between Cincinnati and Maysville.

The attention of the defendant company was called to this complaint and additional coaches being provided, the matter was dismissed.

A. WALLER & Co., HENDERSON, KY., Complainant,

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD, CO., Defendant.

Subject: Car service charges at Henderson, Ky.

The car service charges complained of were amicably adjusted by consignees paying one-half of the outstanding bills and the complaint was dismissed.

CITIZENS OF GEORGETOWN, KY., Complainants.

vs.

CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY Co., and SOUTHERN RAILWAY, Defendants.

Subject: Application for watchman at crossing of Lemon's Mill turnpike.

After an inspection of the premises the Commission was of the opinion that this crossing should be better protected, and after correspondence with the defendant railroads, it was agreed that a watchman should be placed at this point between the hours of 6:15 a. m. and 6:15 p. m. This being satisfactory to the complainants, the complaint was dismissed.

LOUISVILLE COMMERCIAL CLUB, Complainant.

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., ET AL., Defendants.

Subject: Interline switching at Louisville, Ky.:

Objection being made by counsel for defendants that the questions involved in this complaint were identical with those in the case of Central Stock Yards versus the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, now pending in the Court of Appeals, the Commission decided to postpone further investigation and action until the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in the case referred to.

GUY S. WELLS, TAYLORSVILLE, KY., Complainant.

vs.

LOUISVILLE & Nashville RaiLROAD, Co., Defendant.

Subject: Overcharge on carriages, Homer, N. Y., to Taylorsville, Ky.

Upon investigation it was found that the shipment had been overcharged, and, the matter having been brought to the attention of the Railroad Company, the amount of overcharge was refunded and complaint dismissed.