, 1876-12-29
Tho Mo'ion for q New Trinl In tho
metropolitan Case 0vcrrulel.
Tho Judge Also Hollis TINT the Petitioner
11as No Standing III Court
Further Testimony In tho South Park Con-
domination Case.
Record VI Judgments and EoW ynts'..Dankruptty
PROCEEDINGS. =
THE METROPOLITAN

tho condemnation casc OF the Metropolitan city
Railway Cun,pany against tho ChieaEo West
Division Railway Company was continued vcs-
tcrday morning bcfoto judge Rogers.
Alr. Aver said he wns unwilling to have tic
casego to tho Supreme Court without the Judges
ruling on tho notion to act uaido the verdict,
The defendants had been prohibited from sliUw-
ing that they would RufIcr damage by
tho diversion Of passengers from other
streets than 1ako md Can1L II
was m important matter X q
rival lfno Withdrew passengers from Fourteenth
or other streets, and wllatcycr damage was sus-
fcrcd OF every kind should have boon considered.
lie atao claimed tint two OF the Instructions to
tho jury wcso calculated to nlatcail them. Tho
amount OF the verdict was also a gross fraud.
Arguments wcro also made by Mr. Pratt aud
Judge Lawrepco for the petitioners, they claini-
ing that no harm would result from allowing
tho verdict TO stand and lettlng the case 90 up
at onco on tho dismissal OF tho Whole petition.
Judge Beckwith made tho closing argument,
reviewing tho points made by tho preceding
counsel, ind urging that the dclcndants would
bc seriously by overriding tic motion
then ovcrrt'od tho motion for nc,7 trial. Tie
said that 80 far rs tho exclusion Of evidence
concerned he wns sntfstlcl tint lie had ruled
cortseIy. as 70 the HiaIlue.ions M TO- .ne .tjs jn.s
ticle Tls olo E.'sn ~ ~ !avt ~ .ng ps.i3 ,..
Tue substance OF IT Was VII rtGht, nh;l Juror
WIG Isau neasu tno M;o.u tfaS,t ~ n neM ~, .ns i
- w ~: eonu Si. oS 9 ~ o ~
% a. " 1s ot & aso n.sso Wus nEs W.
vas assatls,.oa WIN ~ as no MSuin ~, some.nes
HAvo 10 GVcffuie vsfu,SIa St MhieL thc anpseiae
Iou1t aan sases.ncu @ hnu 1a'y wus .asG
a o atter ne1oFe - tnt t sha rar EGou
NJ Mn VI "ei9nt Attaeneu Y, 'Aot. , vIi,a.eI.
iAere vas s, a also eoou nsat u eSa@si1eo V M
70 snsthn tnclr vcia'cl, anu, III Lnct, thsJ "
veu ~ tne tGst1"oay Fly @ MeIu ~ -, mu IN
S tne5 and a stht M to tbn
opn9as o. Witnesses .nc SudEa t. ~
would not havg been entirely atssatlsilen VIII
tne Vhraiet. y Mas ohe tnaG noo1uy HELL oc
SURG 70 ,n ne satisfied Will. Meh mEnt i,enro oh
2 1ur{ eonla oe got connoscu o. ';MWyeIs r' or
Histeiass Dus!ncss non !l!oy WGnla u'1acs lfo'h
~" Ioa'Ase " ~ I'1ousAi.us , w " ooAM.n. .t a.,
~ view q tlo Whole ease' therefore, thc
Iudgs said hH @ was disposed to Let tho re- verdict t
stau ~ W eveMts, .in 4saenaunis goua NV nv
~ pieluu!ecu ueenust W. Souit naa ~. eitSu. te
Testimony Mesehteu tne taiue ~ tEo 1luhen'sc
as soS W9rt n 1f1 s,o 6 91e cent 10 tno maaHn ot
S50,oO Or sco,ooo, md ti,e Supreme Court
Wou!u 1lot 1or n.o.nG,t n9satu y ~ nsefTs'tt ~
t!o veISles ancy eusl1e.eu ~ wroi,s' ,h ~ y
VIZ si'apsJ aagsIu ~ aes%.a.iumS % ~ W. "ou.u ~.
nnt lesNaie 70 sss nTao anG 'srtG; h; pa.i Soii
hhsues, ne tnouEnt lNst W ~ " stAuu unu h"so
1ne a, ease 60 70 p ano supreme M t GGufs. ,,,o, 81,
ineeo was hoWcver, QUO point NJ 70 Wn;ch ~
9ron m nu Ieen rc, nn aa soon'u
TIL STANDING oF THE fET4I1okEH
III court. lug JuuGG saa ne was SUI OIL lhe
opin19h ~ 1nat tne pcti.ioh eoaio hot oc inalh-
propriated w1s sinsolaf onS, bcIns intangible,
lhvlstb!c, anu tl!corporeal. Act It was OF some
aane' % tnaG 1,a,f u tMo Aegis'ta1c y Tue Hofse t
rer nnu p1y yha tc c @c1, @ coc1t9 aa a Inc
apnsfoR}fiaso ansa properly l. ba. .aerc was
Waether the Aietfopontan Clty MMlway Cotl,-
pany aaa pS 70 rt aa aa acne se
hroporty " a'i. Ine consent ,l , ol thc sly was
first necessary, nnu notlc9 Of a'i application for
an an ordinance must hrat lave been given. II
acted OIL TIC petition was ~ Itself sufficient 70
Justify Judge ~ P'esunilnH hlat tho notice
haa been given, ,Evl1et,rc, however, had been
liz notIcs In ~ had Lcs,, Hlysa; ;.
,Atter tue ora!l.1s'cc w'iH passeu It was u cen
l:tlon precedent tlat It should l,e accepted and
bond slloutu bc given tor TIC taitlllul rcrlorl-
Acts Of the Company under tic ordinance and
within IT. provisions showing IN intention to
avseRt Mers y ~ dae. an acceptance. IN NC R[el @
bonM and make eontracts, aMl lhosu aets were
IN elect on acceptance oi the ortiillasicc. Tho
nohu !d not nave any seal Or serol! showing nj
Intention 10 alllx q seal, mn! vas therefore no
bolal ~ the legul 6onsc OF tl!c word. snbse-
2aently scal was a1ltxed, nnu nAother perfect
hunl tiied, but alter tho time lInlltcd Tor tho
llayinG ct thc trunks had expired. appeared,
however, that the laying q tho tracks Eas eli
lolncl by suit j. the United States CIRCUIT
Court, and tho petitioner claimed thu time lnen-
tloncl IN the ordinances was thereby extended,
:, 1t was q question Of great doubt whether tile
company, had not, bv It's failure to t!lc Il
perfect j., bond n time, Lost nll IT, rghts
Oil Lake uId Canal streets. But tho
main question was whether the Horse and Dunn
my Railroad act eonferrcl on tho petitioner tho
right to take property of tho character ot that
In tue present suit. The right Of excluding nll
railroads from LIKE and Caral streets wis
SPECIES Of property, aad It had becn repeatedly
held tlat such. rights were property aid were
-Ribloc 70 condemnation. Tl!e appropriation Of
such right WIS the destruction OF u: II WAS.
however, subject tu such destruction II tho
Legislature hnd by express words Or necessary
Implication glyen the power TlIo only pro-