Show THAT CASE partially argued before judge judie miner yesterday and adjourned yesterday at 2 the injunction in case of the oden ogden city street dt reet railway company vs if 11 II llende honda bon son A 8 garretson Garre Garro teon joseph brinker find and the city of ot ogden Oden praying for an injunction forbidding tho the defendants from entering into any agreement or the henderson electric street hailway company from filing their bond of with the city recorder waa was called up la in the district court and judge a miner stated that bo he was ready to hear hg ear the t he arguments of both aides sides the case haa has been pending for eoma some lime time but on account of pressure of business busi neca the judge has been und under erthe the necessity necee eity of postponing it until the time above mentioned alter after the former dec decision i ision rendered tendered by judge miner the city council took up and passed an in ordinance granting a franchise to the henerson company to build an electric street railway on any street in the city A bond of for the guaranteed aaran teed performance of the work was required tobe to be filed within thirty days after the passage of the ordinance before this could be done however the ogden city street railway company filed a petition in the district court praying for an injunction and the court issued an order matting a day of bearing hearing for the defendants fen fend danto ants to appear and show cause why said petition should she u id not be granted the defendants filed a demurrer dech doch also a partial answer which ch caused some discussion among the attorneys as to the legality of each such procedure the counsel for the plaintiff claimed that no such course should be allowed as no they were unable to tell tel which to take up first end asked the attorney for t the h a defense to dealno hta his position this he refused to do but said ho he was there to show cause and was ready to proceed and as a proof that tho the position they bad had taken was legal cited the court to the california code thi this the other cido side and tho the argument was proceeded oded with stiller miller and marinnia maginnis and judge rhodes rh ega appeared d for the h 1 plaintiff I antl ff and ad 11 hon 0 ogden hiles lor for the defendants As the deafen defendants dents dints were there to show cause why an injunction should not riot be granted the opening of tho the argument devolved upon them lion hen ogden lilies ulles since this matter was up before the court the ordinance granting the franchise complained ot of has been amassed the caaso of action in this case la Is not for lear fear some legislation will ba to done but because the defendants are about to enter into some contract and cei tain things are bound to follow the complaint of the ogden city street railway praying for an injunction and setting forth the damages which would occur in cage case the ordinance was declared legal was here read by sir mr hiles this complaint asks that henderson Hend ereon garretson Oar retson and brinker and the city of ogden be enjoined from entering into any agreement freemont ement up to this time tim there ethere has fre been een no invasion of plaintiffs streets and the only thing they pray for is that the agreement be denied under the ordinance granted us in september no infringement is mado made upon their rights suppose u under n der theor the ordinance of 1883 they were granted an exclusive franchise it won would III be void as its it is beyond the power of the city council to grant each such a franchise in every cage case when an injunction is p prayed ra dis fo for they thy must make out at a cle clear case 0 b before of or th the e court can stretch out its strong arm and all d interfere mr NIT lilies here cited a cafe case of the united gas company of sheffield against the sheffield gas company praying tor for an injunction against the defendant rm restraining training them from laying iati their mains which abe plaint plaintiff claimed would interfere with their rights tho the injunction was denied while the defendants are talking 9 about the nuisances nuisance a the ordinance granted us clearly states that the t he city claims the right to so regul regulate a to our tracks that they will not be become come a nuisance and the city ord ordnance bances nances a regulate the manner in which nuisances are to be disposed die posed of tholan tho law sa says that it la Is not in the jurisdiction ot of the court urt to interfere in such cases until the city authorities refuse to act the benefit to the public by the new road should overbalance any private privat ci inconvenient incon veniene no one can bay say in advance that the laying eying of tracks on the streets will be a public nuisance they say that the laying of these tracks would throw a shadow w on their title how could this be the only way this could be he is by com competition 0 n and this is no ground as in that case the mule and the mustang could get an injunction against th the 0 thoroughbred from running a race it itis Is eaid said that the th a laying of tracks on certain streets would decrease the value ot of plaintiffs pro property the presumption would 9 be that it would increase the value at theother the tho other investigation the defendant claimed to be te a railroad corporation tic n but bat this has been sib abandoned in boned in the ordinance of 1833 the words aro arc not sufficient to prove an exclusive franchise these proceedings ce are certainly extraordinary at this stage of the matter perhaps s in the future they may have som e grounds for complaint but until they do the action should not be brought and therefore the demur should ie be sustained judge miller millor we are trying this case upon its present standing when hat that complaint sets forth that ua unless ass prevented by this court the defendants will or are about to do some hing thing which will materially interfere with our rights it means that b by the of this ordinance a clo cloud baa has Ea een thrown u upon the title 0 althe I 1 the plaintiff P lain tiff the allegations a fo I 1 rations that both a lublic public and arid a private nuisance aou would d be e I 1 instituted is admitted if your honor lonor should come to the conclusion bat that the ile pa passage go of this ordinance has cast a cl cloud ad upon our title an injunction w will ill issue our oar position is that hat t the grant of IM 1883 ae gives to the plaintiff an exclusive fr franchise Anlee the counsel on the other side eaid said that the only injury which would ba be worked would bathe 19 the diminishing of oar our business and if S it will satisfy him any I 1 will so sey y that this question is one of the moat meet important and ons one we do complain alain of the judge cited a large number cf of injunction nj unction cases sustaining his position under the law of 1880 the conn council elba I 1 had d ro no power or to grant these individuals a irow franchise chise this city council has seen fit to repudiate the contract granted to us and a man who even repudiates a gambling debt is s held in bad repute by his associates here is a case where over hu las been expended relying on the validity of tho con contract t bract run at a lose for over eight years and only within six mouths months pa paying 11 1 9 at a all the contract reads as alif plainly 1 1 as possible hat that if we carried out our part the council would protect ns as and allow no other road to lay tracks on th the streets streeta for the period of 0 twenty div five years the case waa was here hera adjourned until saturday next when the arguments will be resumed |