The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-06-15
l. A w II E p Q II II.
PROBATE COURT.

IhOBAGE
The STREET RAILRoAD CAsE.-The Cincinnati
Street Rruiroad Company the City of Cincinnati.
The. inquiry upon the plaintiffs pctition7was re-
The Jurors were present and answered to their
names
The argument was resumed upon the question as to
the necessity of showing the iaiHre of any agree
mcnt hetwecn tho City Council and the plaintiffs in
relation 70 the appropriation now sought to be made
by the latter.
DR.. vattier was hen examined lie testified that
Question (Gy Judge hiatthews,S has your Company
been able to agree NTH tho eity as to the cSmpensa
Answer-wc hsyo not been able TO agree
Cross.oxamincd by MIR. Hayos--Did you apply for
Al think we applied originally for tho same raute
mentioned in this petition, at least substantially the
.Q.-Did you say you were refused?
Ave considered so. l:knowwe made number
of appGations, aud were unable to agree. --tr
Q.-When did you obtain your charter? %
AA.-nn the 9th OF November, lSN.
Q.-Whcn was your act Of incorporation filed!
Q...You say they applied to Council; how did they
A.-By petition, signed by u number of citizens at
the request Of this Company, and presented by mem
Der of Council at the request of this Company.
Q;-pd the Company draw up any thing addressed
AYES; drew ny, one. The next application was
Did you over exhibit to Council any charters
.,A;-N3t that rccocct; never heard they doubted
Uourt-Uan you state whether any agent or attor-
tly ncy ottho Company applied verbally to Council on
,,A.-YYes; / have talked myself with members of
% in front Of tRis about it. and his pe
mark that need not trouble ourselves about
r s ha npT pe essSs S fSes
thsn these proceedings We're instltnled.
Courl-Of course all that took place outside the
Council room will be ruled out
name Of the Street, road Co%panyf !" '"'
Ayes; thoy were taken in charge by an author
dated fhe "a Of March, another the 9Th Of April
ny n TG tho OF Sf fS WS G" %sSs S
either OF these two you now mention agree with the
think the iirst came very near to it. This Com
mtlee was appointed ON the 9th Of Novem9er by the
| sequentIy, on the 29th Of December Tho Committee
of Council, to whom the matter was referred, re-
Judge Gholson said an official act OF Council could
not be proved in this way. /, laL-,1l
iTg wsr9 W. presented il n relation g she Street
One on the ID Of March, by MIR. Rule Mr. BodIey
attempted to present another, but would not be al
but the Company was willing to pay tax 0ON"''''
X; ID. Handy eXamined-ls Secretary OF the Street
In reply TO the City Solicitor he said he considered
ro@ The Railroad % Te Sithes
enumerated the various communications and ordi-
Judge MstthewsSWe close here; but Il your honor
who o to
| husnce in the matter; Laughter.
mand of the company and the failure of their effort
to bring about an agreement with Council, was then
argued by Judges Gholson and Matthews on the
| side, and by Mr.. Hayes on the other-the former
contending that where an honest effort made 90
procure the agreement land it plain from the
evidence the Council beset, beseiged, aud urged
to To terms this subject IL not necessary
they should conhne themselves TO particular mode
OF agreement Judge Matthews, in the course OF his
remarks alluded TO the advantages OF Street rail
roads, and complained that the want OF action on
the part of the members of the City Council had de-
priyed the citizens Of the enjoyment and direct ed
vantages Of having them in operation Was IL that
| these gentlemen fniany Of whom though paragons of
| wisdom outside the Council Chamber, presented In
their associated capacity within ita different in
tellectua plase did not recognize these advantages.
MIR. Hayes admitted that stTeet-rallroads under
pOratOns for certain time, might be exceedingly
| useful and he believed after time there was
doubt they would have them, OF that the City Coun
c who were, perhaps, open 70 the charge Of moving
| slow in such matters, would further the project,
though they would not be 10 grant one great
MONOPOLY of thirty forty miles of road. TIE proof
here M the direct appicasonof Of this Conl mny 20
the Council the refusal OF the latter was, he con-
tended, insufficient.
| The Court held tIlat tho proof was ample, showing
ompliance with the substantial requisites of the
statute. lt was proper 90 remark that no danger
posed 10 be exercised by this COmpanythe righfnn-
der their charter was not perpetual, the Legsla-
ture might repeal 1t II the parties did not act prop
Mr. Hayes then proposed TO call Witnesses 10 slow
that the two separate and independent routes PtopO-
| lines of communication between Pendlefou and
Oummnsylle-t termini OF the (nnpRn va route.
Tho Court overruled the motion. Further hearing.
AuJoWpeu.C 4 - IA ~ ~ fY-RH