OCR Text |
Show I BANQUET AND I AUTO RIDE I WON OUT H ; Tho trial or the ense of C. R. Hol- H llngsworth against the Salt Lake & H Ogden Railway company was resumed M tills morning with tic plaintiff on the M witness stand. Most of the forenoon H session was taken up in consideration H of "testimony regarding item 29, there 1 being 32 items yot to bo detailed. It M is said by one of the attorneys In Uio 1 case that the trial will take up the H time of the court during tho greater H portion of this month. 1 At the beginning of the hearing thin M morning, tho plaintiff asked the prlvl- H lege of amending the bill of particulars 1 regarding Item 13 changing the H amount stated fronrSSO to $500. Tho M court refused to permit tho amend- M ment, as the bill of particulars, as it H now stands, calls for moro money H than Is praved for In the complaint. H The plaintiff also asked the privllego H of amending' the complaint to incor- H porate in it a clause declaring tho H I S1.G00, made as a loan to tho plaintiff H , hy Vice-President Sidney Bainborger M , of the defendant company, a part pay- H , ment of tho fco claimed by the plaln- H I tiff for services. There was no ob- H Jectioh to this amendment and It was H allowed. M Item 29, the plaintiff testified, em- M ' braced services regarding the securing M of a franchise from the county com- M mlssioncrs of Weber county to build M and operate the defendant company's H ' railroad through the county, lrom the M Davis county line to Idlewild in Ogden H ' canyon, outside of Ogaen city, and H I that the efforts put forth by the plain- H tiff In this respect were reasonably H Avortli $1,000. H j ' Mr. Holllngsworth stated that It ro- H quired about four months' time to M closo this deal with the county com- H mlssloners and tliat the services he M rendered in the matter consisted of an H extended correspondence, the drawing H of resolutions and franchises and per- H sonal consultation with tho commls- H Rioners as a body and with them in an H individual capacity. He said he met H tho Individual members of the board H of commissioners every three or four H days from March to July. 190G. H An Important chcumstancc related H was that tho commissioners were tak- H en over the proposed route in an auto- H mobile, luncheon was had at the We- H her club immediately following which H was held a meeting of tho comriUsslon- H erg and the franchise granted. A H Question regarding the political com- Hr plexion of the board of commissioners, H when Mr. Holllngsworth was making H his overtures for tho franchise, was H not permitted, under the objection of H tho attorney for the defendant com- H pany. In pressing the question, the H t plaintiff's attorney remarked that the H politics oC tho 'board perhaps had H something to do with the employment H of Mr. Holllngsworth to attend tho H franchise matter. Tho Inference H drawn was that the board was Repub- H lican and the plaintiff, being a Repub- H lican, friction was not apt to prevail H ' and that the plaintiff's "Influence," H i with them would ho a matter of con- H sideratlon and his services of greater H At tho time of adjournment for H J- lunch the witness had begun the story H ' of item 30, which, he said In the be- Hp j ginning, had to do with tho sottling H witii the city council the question of H operating a steam road through the H city over Lincoln avenue. The fran- H chlso in the city called for an electric H railroad system, hut, the witness said, H tho company desired to operate the H road by steam until such time as it H could do electrified. This was ob- H jectcd to by property ownors on Lin- H coin avonue,""aTTiI the city council, al- H ' so, was averse to such plan. Mr. H Holllngsworth said tha't ho took the H matter up with the council and exer- H cised his best efforts to get tho prlvl- H lege nf operating a steam engine H through Ogdcn. H j For the services rendered, in ac- H ' cordance ith the enumeration in H item 30, the plaintiff claims he should H be paid $500. H I During tho afternoon session of the H ' court, the plaintiff will testify regard- ing tho services alleged to have been ! rendered tho defendant company as enumerated in items 31 and 32. Item 31 details tho checking up of services pY-rf6rmed for the company H I by Foreman Pearson and legal advice H given the company regarding the H ' transaction, the fco for tho same be- H t lng fixed at $150. H Item 32 deals .with the securing of H a franchise for right-of-way through M Dnvls county, tho plaintiff claiming j that his services in that respect were 1 worth $100. H oo |