The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-09-08

Debate between Senator Edmunds and Mr..
Fif1eld.

t1neld
A hearing took place before Chancellor
Royce on Tuesday, in chambers, on mo-
ton TO adjourn the hearing of the applica-
ton of the Rutland railroad company for
an Injunction to reslraiH the Central YER
mont from interfering with them if they
shall take possession of their road under
that provision Of The lease which entities
them to possession if the rent shall remain
for certain time unpaid. The adjourn
ment was asked for by Mr.. Fifeld, on the
ground that ex.Judge Poland, his associate
counsel, was now sick in Worcester and
not able TO he present, and on the further
ground, that he, himself, had not known of
the grounds of the application until last
Saturday and therefore had not found time
to prepare. He also said that the engage
ment of the managers had been such as to
prevent them from taking any testimony.
He said that while the atlidavits of the
Rutland railroad people set forth that the
rent is some $500, 900 in arrears. bis clients
claimed that they did not owe the Rutland
road dollar, having an offset for expen-
ditures on the Addison road and cross
claim on account of fraudulent representa-
tions in regard to the earnings of the Rut-
land road whereby they were induced to
take the lease.
Senator Edmunds, in behalf the Rutland
road, said he was not surprised at this ap-
plication for delay, for it was the first step
always taken by parties under clear obli-
cation, with nothing to meet it. AS for
the absence of Judge Poland, he is not the
only nor the leading counsel for the Cen
trail Vermont, for his friend here Mr..
Fifield] had knowledge Of their aft airs,
which enabled him to represent them at any
and all times, with distinguished ability,
and as for the other ground for continuing.
he was sorry that any one should presume
to come before the court upon anything 80
untenable. This litigation began some six
weeks ago. Here was lease for the Rut-
land road, drawn, he believed, by his as
tute friend here, which set forth in the
clearest way all rights, duties, obligations
and remedies of the parties, and under it's
provisions there is no question, and can be
none, but that the Rutland railroad COM
pany is now entitled to take possession of
its property. 1t is even a palmer case than
that of the Vermont and Canada lease, in
which Judge Poland found himself unable
to resist al application in 1866 for an in
junction to prevent the Genital from
interfering with the Vermont and Canda's
entity into possession for breach Of
condition. 1t is PLAIN upon the
face of the papers that the reut
must be paid or the road surrendered.
But Mr.. Fifield says they have a counter
claim growing out of the Addison road.
Well look at the papers and see what 1t is.
When the Central took the lease that road
was not finished, and it was part of the
contract that the Central should finish it,
and look to the Addison railroad company
for reimbursement. They finished it, have
run it for two or three years, enjoying its
income, have received their pay from the
Addison road, and now they set up claim
against the Rutland for The very thing
which they agreed to do, and have had
their pay for. They pretend they did not
find the road in so good condition as they
expected, but after they have taken their
pay for putting il in condition, and have
Jun it for two or three years, 1t Is rather a
late day to come forward with such mere
shadow of claim as that. Again, the court
cannot have forgotten that by the terms of
the lease they are free from personal liabil-
ity on account of running the road, and
If this provision applies to them after
breach of condition. they can run the road
just as long as the decision of the court
can be deferred and the Rutland road will
have no remedy. But he did not by any
means admit that they can avoid personal
liability after they have refused to pay the
rent and thus put themselves outside of
the agreement. However, that Is debat-
able point, and before 1t is reached, the
liability of one trust to the other is to be
decided. Now they come here, after ten
days notice of this hearing, and ask for q
continuance to be able to get proof which
they could just as well as not have pre-
sented here, and do not even pretend that
they have done anything to get ready, MOI
produce single affidavit to show the ne
cessity for the delay. BY this delay the
Rutland road is subjected to loss of
some $4,000 day. We ask for an In
junction to restrain them from interfering
with us by force when we avail ourselves
of our right under the lease and take
charge of our own property. II Is a gross
outrage upon justice-for he meant to speak
plainly on this subject-to postpone 80 i'm
portant matter for single hour, when
they have brought forward no proof, nc