, 1874-07-18
Tho indiana Avenue Railroad Case
Nearing an End.
It Is Likely the Decision Will Bo
Adverse to the Company.
Mr. Ewina's Manifold Troubles with
the Mayhol's.
New Suits and Judgments.

which was for a auo ws,ranto, waa filed orig
snalIy tho 25lh of july. 1870. It statos that on
tho 1st day Of February, 1869, and at dtscrs
other tmcB tho Chicago City RAILWAY Company
usurped and usod, without authority Of law, tho
privileges and franchises Of being body politio,
nld laying down, constructing, md operating
lines Of railway on Iudinnn ayenuo, In contempt
Of tho pooplo. Who'eforo on answor
Is asked by tho defendant to blow
what warrant 1t Ind for 80 doing. III other
words, 1t was claimed tlat tho Company had not
obtained tho consent Of two-thfrda Of tho prop
orty-owuars along tho avenue to laying anu
operating traols Oh said street.
In October 1870. tho Company Alod m ai,swer
sctkiug ont tie grant of franchises to build ral-
wavs to Hen,y Fuller, Franklin parmclee, and
Liberty Digolow; the incorporation Of the Chi
cago City Hallway Company III 1882 and tho
various amendments to tho chartcr by Nhtobt
subsouueut!y, tho Company was authorized to
Law down track on Indiana avenue. Tho
ordinance relating to Iniana avcnuc was
rassed Aug. ~, 1864, conditioned that the colt
sent Of the owners Of two-thisds Of tho property
by lineal front measurement bo first obtained,
mid tlas tho track bo aid within fifteen months
from the passago Of tho ordinance. The Com"
many aleo claimed that it had obtained tho con.
sent of the Supervisors Of the Town Of South
Chicago nnd Hyde Park, mud the Town Of Lake,
anil it therefore claims 1t Ia entitled to run It's
cars Oh Indiana avenue aud the other Etreeta
where it has tracks.
The Attorney General on heha1f Of the poopto,
(llol replication, alleging thas tho Com
pany had not obtained eonRent OF tho
owners OF two-thi1ds OF tho property
On tho Btrceta occupied by it's lines Of road;
thnt tile Company did not construct tho whole
m$E Init
6imply to Thirty-first Btroot, within tue time
limited by law !; that tho Company was ony al
loved to lay single track. and has aotu-
oily laid fivo tracks. being aIde-tracks or
switches BY reason Of which VIII, 1aS tue avenue ,ha,
the Company had failed to obey the ordinance
requiring 1t to keep tho streets moietonel where
it lan lts tracks, mid that the Company lad nlso
disoboycd variona other ordinances
To this tho Company rejolnod TINT 1t had
nlwars kept tic law, but haa been provonted
from lnyipg iss tack south OF Thirty'drss street
by Oil injunction. ,-
amount Of evidence wna introduced to show TINT
tbs Company, in good faith, and, ns it supposed.
successfully. ohtalnol tho signatures Of auhi-
cont prpperty-ownors to mako the necessary two
avenue WAS about IL, EGO feet, and it waa neces-
sary to procure the conaent Of property-owners
of l9, 400 feet. ,---
Sumo nco guontions Of law are raieod. Among
others r. - ~ =. um pGa m ttn ~ t0 +nt
tnas .uu ~ m !nras, T.; ;and a 1,,,at
be ovidenceI by decd. On tho other hand, ro-
lying on q decision Of the Supreme Court
On s'n'af pu.nt' nesofe :ba ns'1svun no1nnan nnu
uupeo' ~ oohan - ~ 10 u,anaa naaea.;5i
tnat tne olu4nanse Aaa Sa,i3 Nv sn han5
com'nnadea " no conaont "ooau uafe oeon wv
fc4msise' IN go1nnlen'ns w soao ~ Stu
esstonsg' tat t 1ahn i,od o;vnn h;s co,sent IL
That Long Johh naa sasGn Aia Go1.ssu. ns
paro because ne "as leal'ni H. .e7., l! -! ",s. f.t
m'ght turn ~ aga.ass nia ~ ~ ,eaa r,,n,;n,,
gay, a1u pe useo Iuaeseu no n-o -
= LOT sunIo ons'' Ne"'o 'no ouP'''''''' ~ . p" -
consent :,.,.,,.o5 ,t,, ~, .
oHaEo N1inas nas a't1uIf ;.s H. u"r
neeect 70 ou.u 1uo ssasa "a,nn i H. ha.oa ~
montnH Will oe 1atai ~ nls "ua TO-. .nis
~t w aut suo wntar thn nona]tv for
Fuch lac4es sha1 pe ny ioIaenuss y. 1no t1a. H.
chlee on lno!aua neae W es % IL X u, in.t,os ~ -
aetonoah1s aau1s osaIs uat ;nnsta .y ~. liz
enlllclehs' Wn'le 1ho sn.s ~ ~ ~" 10
1ofiRef' Lug aule Aueets t5o 5 nnuosa ~ -. p9t e.
sohs; ooth ~ psoPgIt5 anu c1ouso, :, a"I tri.a 10
result VIII 70 !ooSea ior Nh ~ H. nsoAo0s- 3Ao
afs'Mohs WI! Do eonc!uueu '.. t.,.sr ao.say. la
Az uSLucKY SPECIFICATION. ~; IT. o.,uz
Court yostotaa5 - WHICH no 1eiases nls ssouples
in connection with some business t transactions
haSns bseS adaaostad 5 A Sanfrap IT,
vas I'D d. aud purchased by Washington @ i Lh1y i,
for Sl5ooo. Iho property was Ghen pat auto
the possession OF III; r. ana j. y; MaJnoh, m ot
te unuelstanunR nas o suooa tn, nelo ,at,nS ~ -
sufrendered na entirely to 1nem wnen tnoy IeEao FRI
the 9lo,ooo TO LIBBY. Iley hase s'hco bo'u
conslderab1e part o. tno e1oox' ano pa'o Large
patt OF L!nbS's claim; ,.. .. ill., .r.
Alont tlia 1st or March Inst, ono OF tho urn
OF ". r. mayhon a. 20 ptopossd 20 complaainah1i IT.
to buy Lipbys interest IN aala STOCK. anu aug
tloretn such no" stock as might ne necessary,
Complainant aSseed, and 40 a'rapGemons WaE
mato about t9e 23a Of Matc! whereby 1t Sn1 E1wns
agreed to buy LinbVs interest IN ti1o ssocs oan aa
employ W, =; nisyhon at snl9ry o. u $26g 6g
montn, ana d. :. MaYhon o. saalJ u @lzo
month. ~ ha statesmen, ". u. Mayhon aareoltll
to tnko charge OF Ewlns'a nusiness make put
ohnses and saies, hire aud dlscllarge clerAs, ant
have general snpe, viston aa to ne a1aea ny ' hs
brother. ). J. Msyhon; Ewing wa arc 10 nay
tho advantage OF the AiayIona' aeqnalhteaoe gu
name, and carry on tho BUSINESS unuo
the nnnio Of Ewing, hlayhon d Co. Compla'natl
sta1ea ihat %aS patt u snG nsisensnd d to ma
haYing dono this, the agreement with tile May