Show WAR OF THE CARS Judge Andersons Rest Twice < Disturbed 1 ALTERNATELY BY BOTH SIDES c Statement of the Attorneys of the City and Rapid Transit Companies Complaint and Answers When TUE HERALD went to press yesterday yester-day morning the injunction obtained by > the Salt Lake City Railroad company restraining re-straining the Rapid Transit company from carrying out its plan to steal the formers roadbed on Second South street bad effected a cessation of hostilities but the trouble did not end there The Rapid Transit people bad succeeded in getting in ties under the other companys rails at a distance of a length apart along nearly three blocks and three or four rails had been laid west of Walker Bros corner The workmen did not go off however evidently evi-dently expecting that something would dropand that their services would be again required Something aid drop Shortly after 7 oclock a gang of the City Railroad companys workmen appeared on the scene > and they promptly commenced to take out the ties put in by the other company and tear up the rails Then THE TURMOIL COMMENCED ONCE MORE the Rapid Transit dapo trying to prevent their work from being undone and the other side just as hard to restore the track to its former condition At the first sign of trouble the attorneys for the Rapid Transit company rushed over to the Cullen got Judge Anderson out of bed and obtained ob-tained his signature to an order restraining restrain-ing the City railroad company from taking out the ties and tearing up the rails The ties had already been torn up however and a good many ties had been taken out before the injunction was served The policemen whose sympathy with the Rapid Transit company was very marked arrested ar-rested William Dummer J W Haddock Edward Meager and O P Arnold jr all employees of the City company for not obeying the order promptly enough to suit them In a short time the loose dirt had been replaced the ties carried out of the way and the street had assumed its usual I appearance I As stated in yesterdays HERALD the hearing on the injunction against the Rapid I Transit company was set for Saturday i next and when the injunction was issued against the city company the hearing was set for the same time Then the true inwardness in-wardness of the controversy will be developed de-veloped J L Rawlins one of the attorneys for the Salt Lake City Railroad company was seen by a HERALD reporter yesterday afternoon af-ternoon and when asked for a brief statement state-ment of the case he said In 1SS9 our company com-pany was granted a franchise for a double track on Second South street and in the coarse of time the tracks were constructed and the line has been in operation ever since Some time afterwards the Rapid Transit company got a franchise I for a track on the same street but was enjoined by the property owners from constructing the traCK Since then they have tried various schemes to get a line in operation onthe street but failed and seeing no way by which they could lawfully succeed they got the city marshal police force and a lot of dagos and made a raid on the property of our company com-pany A part of the scheme seems to have been to have any one representing our company who tried to protect its property carried off to jail We had nothing to ao with the suit of the property owners against the Rapid Transit but we claim that they have no right to occupy any portion 1 por-tion of our tracks Thats all there to it C B Jack one of the attorneys for the Rapid Transit company was next seen and his statement of the case was as follows fol-lows In May 1590 the Rapid Transit company obtained a franchise for a single track on Second South street We had lines on the streets east and west and it was generally conceded that we ought to have some connection between our lines on the two sides of the city So after full consideration we obtained this franchise We commenced work on both ends and completed the line from State to Main streets on the east and from both depots to Third West When we reached this latter point some of the property owners enjoined en-joined us After the heajjng the court on joined us from constructing a third independent inde-pendent line on Second South street but suggested that we should wake arrangements ar-rangements with the other company to use one of their tracks There were objections objec-tions to this of course one being that both companies would have to use the same trolley wire which would involve the question ques-tion as to the supply of power The prop ertyowners however who were the plaintiffs were willing for us to put in an interlace track such as is in operation at First street and by stipulations duly entered en-tered into the construction of such a track was to be considered as complying with the order of the court Upon this basis we filed with the city council a map and profile pro-file of such a track This was referred to the city attorney who approved it and this was certainly a notice to the other company that we intended to go ahead with the work We got ready to commence com-mence construction and desiring to avoid interfering with the business of the other company as much as possible as well as in the street traffic generally we decided to do the work at night So when the city companys cars were through running we commenced operations Between 3 and 4 oclock yesterday morning they got out an injunction restraining us and citing us to appear on Saturday The order was complied com-plied with and at 730 yesterday morning they commenced tearing up the few rails we had laid and taking out our ties We went before Judge Anderson and bad this stopped by injunction and the whole question will come up in court on Saturday Satur-day The complaint in the case of the Salt Lake City Railroad company va the Rapid Transit company is as follows Salt Lake City railroad company plaintiffs vs C B Jack J S Cameron the Salt Lake Rapid Transit company dependants Said plaintiff alleges that both plaintiff and said defendant companies are corporations under the laws of Utah That said plaintiff Is the owner in possession and entitled to the possession of a double track street railroad consisting of the right ofway ties rails roadbed road-bed and aU the necessary equipments for the nil and complete operation of its electric street I x railroad along and upon that certain street known as Second South street In the city and county of Salt Lake Utah territory ana said V company Is and has been engaged in operating r cars thereon for the carriage of passengers That on the night of the 23rd and 24th days of June 1S91 said defendants unlawfully and with a large force of men entered upon said lines of railroad so owned and possessed by said plaintiff = plain-tiff and have begun wholly without right to tear up and destroy said track and roadbed so as to obstruct and prevent plaintiff from operating its cars thereon and for tho purpose of appropriating to its own use plaintiffs said right of way and railroad to the great and irreparable damage of said plaintiff plain-tiff and to the destruction of the rights and franchises of said plaintiff That said defendant threaten and unless restrained by order of this I court Trill continue said wrongs and injuries That j lai tiff has been damaged thereby In the sum of 45500 Wherefore said plaintiff prays tho order oft of-t this court restraining said defendants and each of them and their attorneys agents servants and employees pending this action and until 7 the further order of the court from digging up and entering upon or In any manner Interfering with their railway hereon right of way or the operation of cars thereon situate upon or said cond South street In said it alone the said Second city and that upon the final hearing of this action said injunction be made perpetual For S5ftOO damages for costs and for other proper relief RAWLINS iE CRITCBLOWf Attorneys for Plaintiff The answer of the Rapid Transit com 55 pany ia as follows Salt Lake City Railway company plaintiff T5 C B Jack J S Cameron and the Salt Lakes Lake-s Rapid Transit company defendants The defendants deny that the plaintiff is the = = = or entitled to the absolute or exclusive possession owner of the portion of said street occupied by Its said railway tracks for right of way Deny that toese defendants or either or any of c I tfceei at thesaid or any time wrongfully withal with-al or any force of men or otherwise MmdopoMidlieof railroad secwaed or I n I J t a p a possessed as alleged in said complaint or have begun to tear up or destroy said track or roadbed road-bed so as to obstruct or prevent plaintiff from operating its cars thereon or for the purpose of appropriating to its own use said right of way or railroad or otherwise Deny that by the < said alleged or any other acts the plaintiff ls greatly irreparably or otherwise damaged or that thereby or ai all its rights or franchise will be destroyed otherwise injured or impaired im-paired Deny that they threaten to or will continue con-tinue the saia or any wrongs or Injuries to the < great irreparable or any damage of the plaintiff plain-tiff and deny that the plaintiff has been damaged In the sum of 15500 or any sum whatever what-ever For a crosscomplaint against the said plaintiff plain-tiff these defendants allege that the defendant the Salt Lake Rapid Transit company is a corporation under the laws of the said territory terri-tory authorized construct maintain and operate oper-ate street railways in said cttyof Salt Lake and upon said Second South street That the right of the sala plaintiff to maintain and operate itt said railway said street and upon the portion thereof occupied by it is not exclusive but on the contrary these defendants allege that the said space is subject to joint occupation and use by the said defendant the Salt Lake Rapid Transit con p my That the last named company com-pany has been granted the franchise and privilege privi-lege by the said city to use the said portion of said street for railroad purposes and it has the legal right to so use the tame That in pursu ande of such right it has begun the construction of an additional railway track upon said street I for Its own use In such a manner as to conform to the grade and occupy substantially the same space as one of the plaintiffs tracks the rails however to be laid so that the corresponding rails of the track of plaintiff and the said defendants will be about eight Inches apart That such construction by the said defendant will not obstruct interfere with cr impair the property or franchises of the plaintiff That the lawful proper and careful construction by the defendant the Salt Lake Rapid Transit company of said railway track as aforcsa are the same and only ats complained I com-plained esO by the plaintiff I in its complaint That the defendant has partially constructed I threatens to and I said track and the plaintiff will unless restrained by tne injunction of this I court tear up and remove the cross ties and rails of aid partially constructed track and prevent the said defendant from the enjoyment of its said franchise to construct and operate a line of railway upon said street to its great and Irreparable damage Wherefore the defendants pray the order of said court restraining the plaintiff its officers agents and employes from tearing up removing remov-ing or in anywise interfering with tho aid track cross ties rails or any other property of the said defendant and that upon final hearing an injunction to like effect be granted and that the defendants hate all proper relief WILLIAMS S VAN COTT C B JACK Attorneys defendants The Police in It The trouble between the street railroad companies was ventilated in the police court yesterday and the proceedings resulted re-sulted in a complete vindication of the Salt Lake City railroad people Several officers and employes of that company were arrested ar-rested by the police yesterday morning and the prosecution decided to proceed with the trial of Attorney J L Rawlins and Superintendent of Construction Arnold I first It seems that when Sergeant Glenn arrested Superintendent Read for trying to protect the property of his company from being destroyed by the Rapid Transit dagos Messrs Arnold and Rawlins protested pro-tested against the injustice of the thing and they were afterwards arrested for interfering inter-fering with an ofther Tne evidence simply simp-ly showed that Mr Read was trying to prevent u dago from injuring his companys track when Glenn stepped up and threatened threat-ened to arrest him Words were exchanged and the officer testified that Mr Read struck at him The officer then drew his club and was about to swipe him over the I cocoanut as he elegantly expressed it when Messrs Rawlins and Arnold tried to prevent further trouble I The case was briefly argued by Mr Eichnor for the prosecution I and Mr Critchlow for the defense and the latter took occasion to scorch the Rapid i Transit people severely for their attempt to steal the track He also criticised the conduct con-duct of the marshal and policemen In deciding the case Judge Laney said that the guilt or innocence of the defendants defend-ants depended entirely on the legality of Mr Reads arrest One of the rIghts assured as-sured to the citizens was the right to private pri-vate property and any man might protect his property even to the extent of taking life as had been decided in a noted Michigan Michi-gan case Thequestion arose as to whether I Mr Read was protecting his property at the time of his arrest If there was any I blame to be attached to the police for doing as they did it should fall not upon the men but upon the chief under whoso I orders they were acting The franchise of I the Salt Lake City Railroad company was private property and it seemed that the Rapid Transit men went there in the dead of night and commenced digging I under the other companys track Wny I did they go there in the dead of night like j a lot of tnievea If they had any right to I do what they were duing why didnt they I go there in broad day light The court recalled re-called an instance in which the Salt Lake City company was stopped by the police while laying a track on State street when there was no conflict and it seemed a little sinrular to say the least that the police authorities would allow this to be done in the face of the protests He was satisfied that Mr Read was illegally arrested and I any man had the right to resist an illegal arrest The defendants were discharged When this result was announced Mr Eichnor usked tbat the cases against Mr Read and the other street car men be dismissed dis-missed which was done OTHER POLICE CASES Alonzo Boyd W C House and Mike DReilly three plain drunks were fined r5 each Joseph Simon was assessed 510 for keeping keep-ing his place of business open on Sunday PLEADED GUILTY AND TET APPEALS A few days ago M H Joy was arrested on the charge of exhibiting a deadly weapon and when taken before Judge Laney he pleaded guilty and was fined 8100 and sentenced to thirty days imprisonment impris-onment After receiving this dose Joy I evidently came to the conclusion that he i lad made a mistake in pleading guilty and his attorneys Newton S Glenn I took steps to take an appeal Judge Lanoy j ruled that as the defendant had pleaded guilty the defendant was not entitled to Ian I-an appeal under the statute and yesterday afternoon the defendants attorneys appeared ap-peared before Judge Zane and asked for an alternative writ requiring Judge Laney to allow the affidavit and bond on appeal to beLL ahow be-LL mod or else appear and snow cause for ama action The writ was issued and made returnable re-turnable next Saturday Probate Court Estate of J W Townsend petition for allowance to widow 25 per month granted from May 34 1891 Estate of W V Morris petition of allowance al-lowance to minor Mary C Morris f 10 per month allowed from date of appointment of guardian I Estate of J S Barnes claim of A R Carter for 100 assessment work on mining claims approved Estate of James WIckens petition for allowance continued to July 7 Estate and guardianship of James and I William Wickens et aL minors petition for letters etc continued to July 7 Estate of Hans Peterson petition to set aside estate bearing set for July 7 I Estate of P S Sanderberg petition to set aside part of estate and for allowance hearing set for July 7 Estate of DArjd Whyte administrator i discharged and securities released I Estates of S F Lenzi and Mary Ann Lenzi appraisers appointed I Estate of Charles Raybould notice to creditors ordered published Estate of Frances Ann LItson notice I to creditors orders published |