Show THE STREETCAR CASE Closed Except he Decision Which I Wi Come Soon 11q 1 NST STRIKE OUT WiqE t D AND TST MON F DENSE TA Supreme Court Affirms Lower Cout In Pr r Chame 75 Crane an1Remiiigton riine AU af 7 1 A ve I the flouiids GasePro J bate Orders and Court g c TlehearIng of testimony In the In junctQ ii suit of Brigham street resl dent gainst the Sal Lake Street Rail waycornpany concluded lat evenIng The mter reiatLve to certain alleged J ter relatie t ceran aleged agreen hts by he copany that it woIIdTot I extend its line east of E stttehs to some extent now nar d row td1own to a question of veracity between the officers of the company and the memoer of the city council i Final decision In the case will probably proba-bly be reached durIng the early part of next week When court convened < yesterday morningJtdg1JtIe overruled the motion mo-tion tostrikeQut all the testimony in troducd bylaintIffs side as well as to dismJs the case without any further I fur-ther hearing MOTIONS OVEltRULED The court said The substance of the complaint Is that the defendant Sal Lake City Rairoa company is about to lay a street railway track on South Templetreet inSal Lake City east of E street to the damage of the plaintiffs who are abutting property owners on that street That the defendant de-fendant has no publ ranchise to lay such raCK tnat alhouh it once may Ia l l have had such privilege It in 1893 and 1891 with the assent of the government govern-ment of Salt Lake City agreed to abandon and did declare its abandon 4 meet of that part of the street and p since then there has been an acquiescence acquies-cence 11 the city and the defendant street rairoad company and the general gen-eral public In such abandonment That the declaration o abamln ment thus made and its acceptance by the city were both entered upon the ImbUc records of its transactions or by resoluton or the defendant upon its minutes and that thIs omission was made out of consideration for certain interests of the defendant railroad company whlchIt represented to the city council would be injured by the publication of the transaction That a not ithstandlng the agreement thus made the defendant Is now seeking to repudIate and disavow it to the injury of the plaintiffs and is fraudulent asserting that it still has a franchise over the disputed territory and that I this assertion by the defendant of its privilege is to th injury of plainWrs who are the alleged beneficiaries of that convention between the city and the defendant railroad company Defendant moves to strike out the evidence which has been elicited by the plaintiffs in support of their case on I the ground that it is incompetent and I irrelevant and because the complaint I does not state facts sufficient to constitute con-stitute a cause of acien i I intimate I at the outset of thIs i trial that no suit could be maintained 1 y a third party to dcfea a franchise j by the government to another on the I ground of misuser 01 nonuser of such franchise tat I should decide that that Is a mater between the govern ment and the grantee of the franchise that for such cause the franchise can be defeated only at the suit of the gov < rnment I think however although I do not know that the point has ever J been decided that a third party may J where he claims that his interests will be injurIously affected by the attempt to exercise the franchise allege and prove that there is no franchise by reason of its haYing been abandoned by the grantee with the consent of the gOlrmnnt granting i I decide therefore that any dence In the case which tends to prove the allegations of the complaint is competent The evidence of Mr Horn Mr Lawson and Mr ohn tends to show that at onetime one-time there were negotiations between the city government and the defendant looking to the abandonment of the disputed dis-puted territory Whether the evidence shows that the negotiations ended in i i the abandonmentin other words whether the evidence amounts to proof of that flti a question upon the weight and sufficiency of the evidence I I which cannot be determine on this motion moton motonthCeore overrule the motion to I strilfe out the evidence elicited on the trie ground asserted that It is incompetent I As to the motion to dismiss on the I Joundto strike out on the ground of I irrelevancy my first impression was I that the testimony of Horn and Lawson i Law-son was irreleantbecause the negotiations negotia-tions between the city government and the defendant in 189 related not to the granting of the ordinance of April 18 iSji hut the former franchises of the defendant but upon examination of the several ordinances they seem tu show that the ordinance of April 18 1891 is not a new and distinct grant but an amendment and a rEenactment of former for-mer ordinances granting to the defendant defend-ant the franchise In question Therefore the evidence as to the 4 transactions of 153 relating to the abandonmtnt seems to be rlleant In deciding this motion I again repeat re-peat that I diStinctly refrain from expressing ex-pressing any jUdgment respecting the weIght or he sufficiency of the evidence evi-dence to sustain the allegations of th complait Now In this view of the case I think I fell into an error yesterday In reusIng reus-Ing tQ permit the plaintiffs to prove that thtJr interests were InjurIously af fectcr by the running of the railroad conlpany pastlaying the railroad track past their property and 1 i overrule the former ruling sustaining the bjecton to that testimony The ground of this decision in brief is that I believethat a party who is Injuriously in-juriously effected by any structure in a street abuttng hIs Property may show that the party erecting it has no fran chi e THE DEFENSE OPENS The defense then opened its case and fup rintenrent Red was cal le stated that as director of the company in 1593 and 169 he knew that the nego tatons or t1e company were not entrusted en-trusted to any particular officer but that anyone could meet and di5CUSS the mater informally with members of the council Mr Read denied emphatically that he ever wrote a letter to 2r Horn or anyone else td the effect that the com pany had abandoned the street or anything any-thing else relating to that mater He had no recollection of meeting with a cOuncil committee composed of Horn 1ans and Lawson and so far as he knew nv officer of the company had t dechred In favor of abandonment F SO IEWHT OF A SENSATION r At this point Secretary Wils vas t > called and created somewhat of a sen t I nation by testifying that some time In L Ih whie the mater of extension was pending oxCouncilman Horn exCounciman came tp I him wita pr pared typewritten let i ter whicl le wanted witness t9 sIgn b Winess said he told Born he had no authority Horn replied by saying he i I didnt care about that and ifhe could I get witness signature as secretary I tl rc uitibe no further trouble about F getting the frnchise through VineE f sId he signed the let r as seretar c t I I lot the Salt Lake City Railroad company com-pany He never told anyone about it except Mr lcCune who was out of the city at the time but who returned a few days afterwards lIr 1cCune wines said censured him severely for his action Horn witness said wanted I the letter to show his BrIgham street constituents Mr Wels admitted having hav-ing copied the letter in the companys copying book The book was offered in evidence for the purpose of showing that the letter of Jnrns was written on a different typ4 iter to what the other communicatols were ExCounciman W P OMeara test Oed that nt a council meeting in 189 one of the members asked Francis Armstrong If the company would release re-lease Brigham sreet to which 11 I Armstrongs reply was That i could I not all the right of way being bonded He was nositve the later did not agree to abandon the street but heard him say that they had no intention of building at that time EXMAYOR ARMSTRONG I Francis Armstrong said he was mayor i may-or of the city when his company was granted a franchise The first time any I objections to the extension were raised was in 182 when W E Smedley and I r C Conkln caie to him about i At one meeting of th council com I mitee to which winels had been invited in-vited he was asked if the company I would abandon East South Temple street and the reply he made was he I dlant think so Witness was then asked if such a thing was possible would he vote for i and he replied he I would not Mr Armstrong explained f that he was referring to a committee I of the council of ISH Referring to Mr Horns visit to the companys office in 182 Mr Armstrong said he only recalled Mr Rich being with Horn The only persons in the office at the time were Secretary Wells and the other clerks He did not say I the tenslon project had been abandoned I aban-doned or that the company would not build without the consent of the property prop-erty owners haYing first been obtained No director of the company so far as witness knew had ever intimated that any portion of the franchise would or ought to be given up He attend d most of the meetings of the board of directors and would certainly 1lVC heard of it had the question of relinquishing relin-quishing ever been mooted In the afternoon the compan stc rotary Mr Wells was put on the stand and he identified a letter written by him to 11 Horn of the counCl whle negotiations for the franchise were pending In this letter Mr Wells stated that under existing circumstances tIe company rid not Intend for years t I extend its line on Brigham street eat i of E street holding that i was bad I policy on the part of the company when such acton was objectionable to the i residents upon whose patronage the I line had to rHr If0hoe Yer it should be the wish of the property owners nt i some future time to have the car serv I tme ice extended to the reservation the mater would be consl red io doubt I PRESIDENT 1lCUNE I President McCune who was then called said Mr VeIs had no authority I to write such a letter He was away at the time and first knw about i i upon his return when Mr Yels told I him about It Mr 1lcCune said he censured cen-sured his secretary for assuming such I authority but did not consider the mater of very grave importance all i circumstances considered I Witness said he had frequently talked with Horn about the franchise and incidentally in-cidentally the Brigham street extension came uP but at no time did he assert that the company had abandoned the right to construct a line at some future fu-ture time That witness did tel Horn was that the company did not have any intention at that time to make the ex tension Horn acted as if he was most Interested in squaring himself before his constituents and wanted the company to say something that would appease the residents makIng the kick Mr lcCune denied that he ever told Cohn the com ary had ab nd ned the lPUJed street Nothing material was brought out on crossexaminaton despite Judge Deys attempt to intimate that negotiations for the franchise were not conducted properly Relative to the alleged con versaton with Dern a few days ago j witness denied that he ever used the I language attributed to him to the ef I I feet that the company was extending I the line for the purpose of getting even II I with the Hnpic Transit company A cOistruction entirely different from that intended was put upon i he II I claimed but before witness could explain ex-plain the court ruled the testimony on this point out on the ground of being I immaterial lr llcClne also stated j that in all negotiations with members I of the council the officials of the company absolutely refused to abandon I Brigham street Dont you feel different when ap plying for a franchise or running for I ofee than you usually do queried Judge Dey who was attempting to be funny I No sIr was the prompt reply I hand never go around with my hat in my 1 HON T q CHAMBERS I R C Chambers said that at none of the meetings at ndn by him did the cqmpany declare its Intention to aban iloff the street itt question ExCounciman Horn was recalled He was t1ion 5 copy of the letter i written by veils but declared it leter wa I not the one he had prevlo sly referred j to and which had been misiad To the best of his recoUeCtoJ the statement I he receIve as to the company disclaiming dis-claiming any intention of building on the street was signed by Superintendent Superintend-ent Head He dlmied absolutely that lie eVer went toSecretary Wells with Vels the draft of a letter Or statement ask lug for his signature 1h1s wa a flat ContradiCtion of llr Yels tectim01Y l the stand assert lag that C tmtlman Horn on one oc cslon came to him with a letter pur portng to assure the Brigham Street people that thr line would not be ex tended and which statement 1 Horn wanted for the purpose of squaring himself with his tuents E E RItli cerfo orated llr Horn on the point that the Wells letter was not wa the one slrnwzx by the lattejto wit liSS SuperIntendent Read was mt on the stand for arleL eriOd after which afer boUl sides rested lts case and it trgu ments will be heard next Saturday evening |