Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1875-11-26
DECISION OF C0URT ADVERSE To HEARING At.i
uAvIrs-FURrHER DELAY.

uAYITS-FURr DELAY.
Ia the Rutland railroad hearing al -
Adams. Wednesday. hejadge- decided uo'
to receive aGidayit- in support VI the pet'
ton. Judge Royce SAID the petition be-
comesa part of the original suit under
which the recciycr-hip exists, and as DC j.
controversial. the same rules % procedure
as under ball vii he enforced Such be
understood to have been the uniform Prl'.
tee
Judge Barrett went inio IA cAb.ratcao-
learned review of tie lue7ii n a. 90 the adj
instability Of alI !A,it- 10 support af pe'i-
lions. and cited Judge Story o. Sd 50 HAT
they are not admissible A. 81 rule. bat vii
he IL exiremc cases whore tle Feiiuon SET
ED that irremedl4b.c irjdry Will occ4r Il an
Injunction l. not granted. THIS Wa iha
former English practice and has been the
invariab,e rule in Vermont.
\ long discussion then cn-uet an NJ
| counsel n 10 the method oi proceeding
hereafter MIR Underwood SAID they should
file substantially the same answer t. tae
petition that they had 81 the bill. but they
should want reasonable time % prepare
it.
Mir. Willard. in behalf of the Vermont
* Cansda. having Just before the decision
/ tiled petition sisued by himself a. att5r-
ney. stated that Il time we're to bc granted
he would file petition. in the nature OF an
answer to the Rutlani's petition AMI have
il signed by the president of his company.
I Ii woull probably De the same ia sub
stance a the one first filed. That sets forth
that the receivers never had legal authority
10 take the Rutland lease and denies that
any rent j. now Justly due but n the
/ lease l. a losing one, the Vermont i Jana
/ da desires 1t u be terminated At once.
! MIR. Roberts. IN behalf OF the Rutland.
/ said that the Central Vermont, "a violation
of the contract and the order OF the court,
| have stopped the payment Of rent, and vet
/ they still claim to retain possession OF the
road. upon a cr0ss-clalm which they Sc; up
for damages. They owe u about halt
million now. and II i'll soon be million.
Are We % be turncd over 10 a bankrupt
trust to get 81 large an amount OF rent as
this? lhcy 90 not deny the allegations IN
our petition but set up claim OF fraud.
about which they have raid nothing Tor five
vears i there ir4S fraud. they have
already in their hands halt a million OF our
money to answer to 1t. 1t Is said that We
can't properly obtain ultimate relief by
such 1 speedy process a this petition. but
the other party takes Copenhagen first and
awaits judgment afterwards. trying to
postpone II H. lar g. possible. l. this any
thing but taking advantage OF ones own
wrong? There ought not TO be a con'iuU-
ance OF this for 4 single hour unless they
will give u ample security. II they have
not already in their hands a sufficient in
demnity, We will gave them any that they
may ask in reason.
Col. Walker brought up the petition OF
jane 5. Whitney, and said that NJ an
swer having been flied, it Is now regularly
before the court for hearing.
Judge K wee sad the bill was entered at
the ptcmber term. and was continued,
therefore it is premature to call 1t up now.
MIR. Emery brought up the petition OF
himself. and Nessrs. Howe and Perkins and
a. he claimed that il was in part a deIuur-
rer to the petition OF TIE Rutland. he was
ready for hearing upon 1t nov. but va,
wiling to consent to 4 delay. Ia behalf OF
the bondhoiers he denied thai the Rutland /
is entitled TO rent. Down to q short time
after the lease was taken they had received /
their interest, bat since then it has been /
diverted from them, and he considered that /
the Rutland had received it.
Judge Poland denied that they owe the /
Rutland, and claimed that the Rutland /
owes them. There has been complaint for /
years that there was fraud in making the /
lease
Gov. Page said none had been made to
him.
Judge Poland replied that he mad three
afidavliS in tis pocket directly c,ntrai'c-
tory OF Gov Page on that point
Tie counsel. alter long deiibeI alton,
finally agreed that the Rutland nil ht have
SIX days ia which TO amend their petition.
if they drSir- : the Central twenty days
alter that to answer IL the Rutland three
days 10 reply and twenty-five days after
hat to take testimony tue Central -ixty
days after that t. take is testimony, and
the Rutland twenty-five days in which to
take rshutiing te~timony-the " hole max
ing one hundred and thirly-nne days. or a
OF the trial until the 5th OF
April.
In the matter of Gen Whitney, petition
an order of notice 10 be given defendants
within ten days was passed with thirty DAYS
alter that 30 answer and sixty days after
bat TO complete the testimony
Judge Thomas then brought up the mo-
ion Tor an order to compel the receivers to
.et aside the fund sccrning from the lower
-oads to abide the result OF the suit. 80 that
he Rutland could haue some security. lie
,laimed that. by the orders gwen on the
over roads and embraced in the lease. the
Rutland acquired an equitable lien upon
hose funds, and the managers have no
light to take and appropriate them to any
,ther purpose 1t is proper and right,
therefore, Tor the court to order the fund
et apart and kept subject to the result OF
his suit IL is a misrepresentation of the
und for the managers to use it for any
,ther purpose.
Judge Barrett said the proceeding before
he court is on the petition only, and that
Ices NOT cover this question. There is
therefore, nothing before the court. The
hing attempted should he by formal APP
,lcation before the court. with due notice
o the other parties.
This ended the proceedings.