Show Fourth lihtrict i t tonM Yeafrdat mrnlUR lu the cola 01 the It o Qrande Wee era l1IIOy omlony vs Ibo Telluride Pwar Transmfislou company several wit uxsis were recallur by the plaintiff and gave additional testimony In ro itself to the word done In too cabyoli In the work ol surveying etc auil lu I regard to tinluE ordered to stop work by the deloiida agents When the testimony for the plalnlltl closed Henator Brown ol counsel lot Jtfenilint moveJ tor a nonsuit on tho ground that A L Murphy who five the railway company a dead for alight a-light ol way Loki no right to convey and that tire railway company cb talned no rlhu train Lila that the time In which Ibo railway company com-pany bad a right to oinsuuct a line throujb 1rovo canyon under Its charter from the state had expired be lots the omloay commenced work on the prepared Hue that Ibo act ot Con green which give railway companies the I I allot lo construct lines over the public I domain does not give the companies com-panies any right to the laud until ue profile mOl or the roan has been approved ap-proved by the olllce of the Interior ana that The nap ol this road wa nut approved until alter the suit wa commenced com-menced that the Ueleuilants were In osuislon of tbe land before the plain tillj otrnmoacod work on It that there was no evidence lo how that plain lllli Intended to build a rod turougb tire canyon Lot only to show that they state there lor Ibo purpose ol gathering data ttf a map and to ob Slant the Provo company Irom prosecuting prose-cuting the work The mollau was argued at great length by counsel ou both video and aJar a-Jar number ct authorities dud Judge Djseuberry denied the motion and this morning Ibo defendant begin lo t Ictroduce evidence OTI1E1I EUtllESS Harry Uayesvs Oliver A HhJe et al Ii OUmieoU al plaiulltl cost Alatllo H Neluu Vojel vs Qustar A VTidmrk et oli I publication of turn alone ordered |