The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1870-07-01
THE RAILROAD STRUGGLE.
THE FIGHT BEFORE JUDGE BAR-
N1RD ron AN INJUNCTION.

| The Judge will not Interfere with the sale
| Of Tickcts-Who shall be Receiver
Horace +. Clnrk's Anidsvit-The Story
| from n vanderbik Point of View.
| The motion for an injunction in the case of the
| Erie Railway Company against the Lake Shore aud
Michigan southern Railroad and New YORK Central
| and Hudson River Railroad Company, was continued
| before Judge Barnard yesterday. Judge Barnard
said that he had been able to make up his mind M
to but one point Of the terms suggested via that he
could not enjoin the Company from selling tickets.
After the jury had been impaneled fvr tile trial
| Of Sheridan,
THE WIFE MURDERER,
| Judge Barnard returned to Chambers when Mr.. A.
p. Laning said that the order that the Erie people
desired TO have entered contained some 1--WE or six
propositions. in relation to two of which he
understood that His Honor had returned the order.
The FIRST was in reference to the appointment of a
referee, and they desired to have II altered to
read that II Is not made the consent Of the de-
PENDANTS, aud they also desired 10 have II appear
that they opposed IT, In regard to the appointment
should be appointed in the western part of the
| State, as II would be very onerous TO compel
the third proposition submitted in the order they
desired that the clause which required the defendant
serge up S. the s plhas all to be S Rad
| ter to read additional aidavits in reply to new
matter,
ne STRICKEN OUT,
claiming that they should have the privilege Of pre-
senting a1idayts In the ordinary manner On the
hearing of the motion. They also desired to be at
| they saw Ht The nth proposition, restraining the
| agents from selling any tickets or other certificates
and wished an OPPORTUNITY to present present their
| objections in the form Of alidayits. The sixth
The hands OF the Court to he regulated by ujunc-
ton, which he submitted could not be done. They
had prepared some afidavits that point, but be-
fore proceeding with the reading Of them he would
call the attention Of the Court to the fact that the
restriction imposed upon the defendant pending the
time that was allowed them to meet the main qucs
ton Is arestrction operating upon the whole line Of
| the DEFENDANTS road extending
| FROM BuFPALo TO CHICAGO,
while the contract alleged in the complaint was an
pcable to road but ninety miles in length at the
| eastern terminus Of this road, aud the provi-
| sons which are to be enforced apply TO this whole
length OF rond, apply TO fourfhs of the road that
was never under the effect OF this contract, aud
which of course, rs matter Of right, never no
| imposed under any form of order which can be
Mr. Lapiug then read the afadavt OF Mr.. Horace F.
| Clark, OF which the following Is an abstract:
HORACE ,. cLARK's AFFIDAVIT.
Amer etailing at some length the proceedings had
on ,he l0h ms ca nt before Judge Barnard. Mr. CLARK
enable defend"nts TO fny prsnaro an ss also
Winch sRs int TO STs 6e facts
Injunction that IN ne Judgment ~ would De entirely
dets9dan,s mat any Injunction. whether general or
Uafth should he granted that the defendants decline
posed cond ons and the dcponent insists that defend.
present facts wh,cn wiis Tine tRc y' can s' pre-,
| plaintiff aud furnishing complete answer 10
any apglc@tion Tor in melton that President OF
lgst 1f I, IN any derfee CHANGING the manner N
Gondncted Siih teerenee % The claims or interest! OF
vel road , U me SHW hq 2ns SspH and hnds9I
Nj; Nsndei hit Tie complaint that the COMPANIES
ir9lgd by The same person. Wholly and unqu,nedly
deetos aSd eosronE 1ns eae 9 Of 81 me
named Corporations i Interested IN both OF them.
and cSJgsrat,ag for ne pgiro,e Of i6eif
line run adversely 10 the no ~ s f ca into
FaaS boz Sisg: .ss, ne affairs q ihs Lase snGto
tsIes, o. hat Company without de'ation from any
FIGHTING AGAINST 1T.
Mr. Beach then said that This was simply an april
ton 1t seemed to him that It would not be discreet
there Was sny hesitation in the mind OF the Court
on that subject they intended to present, as far as
merits Of the application the part Of the plaintiff
lie did not see any necessity for an Injunction. when
none was wanted on the primary application.
Mr.. saearman said that they were losing thousands
OF dollars every day In consequence OF the long
DELAY The violations Of which they complained
were comparatively recent in date.
THIS CONTRACT WAS VIOLATED
thirteen years ago. and their predecessors immcdi.
atey applied for injunction and got It. That being
violated three years afterward they got another from
Judge PeckhaIn and those njunetions remained In
force for seven years, and It not until recent
date that they were enabled to complain. They did
entitled TO ask they were entitled to have every
stopped At Buffalo, but they did not for all
their rights now. There had been no violation OF
the contract on their part. The gentlemen opposing
asked an adjournment. lie did net ask for an in
junction with their consent. but asked the Court to
grant as much as had been granted In previous
case, and that an injunction should be granted as
condition of adjournment.
DooMrrLE's POINT OF LAW.
Mr.. Doottle said that there was a question OF
law lying at the very foundation OF this contract
which he did not ask the Court to pass upon, but
would state 1t So that the Court could that it WIS
a doubtful point. The Erie Railway Company is or
what contracts they are to avail themselves vi, but
does not mention this contract.
JCDGg BARNARD SAID
he thought thew had better read or state the con.
tents OF their papers so that upon hearing what
claims they mad he could decide what would he the
probabilities of the final result OF the litigation
lie Presumed that some one of the afldavits would
he as strong as tue generality Of those they would
read hereafter and il there positive aida
VII he would become satisfied, ana the production
of it .wonld bring the overthrow OF the plaintiffs
Tp5n tie strength of this announcement Mr..
Lahing shen read the following afhdaNits:
ADDISON uILLs's AFFIDAVIT.
shore aud MchgaH Southern road residing al cleve
land denies that nat road At any time slnCe rs io.ma.
gave it facilities which had not extended to Tue Eric
eacn, aud has gwen epecinc Instructions to Ia
10 require the shipper in every case 10 detgnate the
route by which the property Is to and note
the DILL and that tire LAKE Shore road has
f'at III lie" a fG5s
tons In the complaint are generally and comprehen.
sNely denied, ul compliance with the terms OF the
agreement with the Erie Company is ayerred and a
point OF reorganization IN favor o. Erie instanced 10
the extent OF twenyone miles OF difference In length
OF route The AFFIDAVIT O. NJ ms sustained as to
matters OF detail By atida ts Of Chas, NJ. Gray
eral freight agent Lake sh,r' and Michigan Southern
railroad G. II Lee, director VI the Buffalo and Stale
Line railroad, and Others.
JAMES uLLINGuAsr AND SOLOMON DRULLARD
Jointly make long and elaborate anidayt on the de-
tendant's side Of the question. Mr.. Tillnghast
formerly assistant superintendent OF the Bulfao and
state Line Railroad, and Is superintendent the
Central. VI Drulard is height agent OF the Central.
They detail the history OF the formation and cOnFOlda
tiou Of the different roads which by the
and titles OF the defendants in this suit aud enter at
length into interesting "reminiscences OF tile growth
and DEVELOPMENT Of railway enterprise and scoommo
dalton between the Atlantic seabOard the great West,
and the Paene s,one They say That IN lssl. when the
we're mo- connecting lines o. railroad IN exit
ence west OF the Pennsylvania state line
| at the terminus OF tho Buffalo and state Line
road that since that period chain Of railroads
| has formed. from Chicago