The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-10-15
The Rutland Railroad Hearing again
POSTPONED.

According to previous adjournment, the
application of the Rutland II. II. Co. for a
recovery of their road from the Central
Vermont came on for hearing here to-day,
before Chancellor Royce. Hon. Daniel
Roberts appeared for the Rutland and
that Senator Edmunds, whom the Rutland
Co had relied upon to present the main
argument in their case, was detained at
Washington by illness in his family.
The motion was pleasantly opposed by
Mr.. Underwood, who said the Central was
ready for hearing. He understood Judge
Prout 10 say, at the time OF the last ad-
journment, that they did not expect Mr..
Edmunds attendance. Whether or not
this adjournment was TO accomplish any
other object he would not attempt to say,
but the bill in chancery prays for a decree
to vacate the lease and at the same time
contains motion for an injunction to re-
strain the defendants from interfering with
the orators if they shall forcibly take pos
session in other words they propose to do
just what they ask for the right to do, and
do it in advance of the decision. Such a
thing is anomalous. But possibly the
judge has nothing to do with this adjourn
ment he had seen Rutland dispatch in
Wednesday evenings Boston Journal that
the hearing would be adjourned. I'm
dOubtedly they know more about 1t down
there than the court here.
Judge Poland, on the same side, also
made little sport of the double character
of the orators bill. He said it was like
know but it was more like politics, for they
seem to have got modern fashion of hay
ing an informal ballot in conventions, and
this looks as though the orator was trying
to get an informal decision of the court
and then take out execution.
The chancellor said he did not under
stand Judge Prout at the last hearing to
say that there was no expectation of Mr..
Edmunds again appearing in the case.
Mr.. Roberts stated that he now pre-
sumed Mr.. Edmunds would not be able to
attend to it hereafter. But Judge Prout,
having relied upon him, was not ready to
90 on. So far as the motion for an injunc-
ton is concerned, they could withdraw it
to-day and renew it tomorrow if they
chose, and inasmuch as the defendants are
in possession of the road, and cannot,
therefore, be injured by continuance, he
thought they might as well haye it as to
Withdraw and begin again when counsel
can attend TO it.
The chancellor took this view and after
some consideration the counsel fixed upon
the 10th of November as the time for the
hearing, that being the earliest day when
the chancellor could attend to it, though
the counsel for the Central endeavored to
postpone it further.
Hon. II. S. Royce and Mr.. ]. w. Emery
appeared in behalf of the petition of Thos.
II. Perkins and others (Which is a sort of
tender to the Central side of the contro-
versy) aud asked what should be done with
that. Mr.. Roberts had filed an answer to
it, which was in the nature of demurrer,
and il the court designed, as hitherto, to
hear the cases together, this demurrer
should be disposed of now and masters ap-
pointed and orders made for the taking and
filing of testimony, so that the case might
be ready for hearing.
But by an agreement it was ordered that
it should stand over until the 10th and be
heard on the answer at that time.
The supplemental bill of Gen. Whitney
and others, (Which is sort of tender on
the Rutland side) was also continued will
the others.-St. Adams Messenger.