Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1880-04-23
TIfE RAILROAD WAR
Judge Barrett DismisAes the N OtiOn for
an injunction against the BrattIeborO
and whitehall Road.
ANOTHER POINT GAINED FOR THE MARROW

GAUGE
A bill in chancery and prayer for an in
junction was brought last week by the Yer
mont Valley railroad company against the
Brattleboro and Whitehall railroad company,
the New London Northern railroad company,
and the Central Vermont railroad company
the prayer in the bill being that the Brattle-
boro and Whitehall company be enjoined
from concentrating their lease to the New
London Northern company, and that the
New London Northern be enjoined from tax
ing the lease. The bill, which was signed
and sworn to by S. NJ Waite, for the Valley
company, made various allegations-nmong
others that the understanding was that the
Brattleboro and Whitehall company should
not assign their lease from the Valley compa.
ny. In the answer of the Brattleboro and
Whitehall company these allegations were all
shown to be incorrect and untenable-the an
swor particularly setting forth that, since the
first of December last, Mr.. Waite had tried
to negotiate a lease of the Brattleboro and
Whitehall road with two different railroad
companies, without ever claiming or pretend
ing previous to March LIST, that the lease was
not transferable.
Upon the filing of this bill Judge Barrett
made an order on the defendants to appear
at Woodstock on the 10Th inst and show
cause why the prayer should not be granted.
On the 18th the plaintiffs counsel made vari-
Gus excuses and asked for continuance.
principally because Mr.. Phelps of Burling
ton could not be present on account of other
engagements. Formal notice was also given
to the defendants, signed by Davenport Il
Eddy, that there would be no hearing on the
day appointed. The day, however having
been fixed by the Court, and not by the plain
tfIs counsel, the defendants saw fit to attend
on Tuesday and make answer Hon. +. l..
Waterman appearing for the defense, but no
one appearing for the plaintiffs. On motion
of the defendants counsel Judge Barrett
made an order dsmissing the motion. Thus
closes another chapter in this controversy,
while another decided victory is scored for
the new road. Our readers may rely on this
statement of the matter to be correct, al
though, if our memory serves US, the out
come of this latest movement to crush or EN-
barrass an enterprise, in which the people Of
the West River valley have invested S2O0,-
600 in cash, had not been predicted in pre-
else terms by our neighbor of the Ordcie
sometimes known as the ReformerJ
The following is the text of Judge Bar
rett's order
The within motion for temporary injunc-
ton and order to show cause thereon having
come on for hearing at the Office Of the Coun-
ty Clerk in Woodstock, Vermont, this 10Th
day Of April, A u. 1850, at 3 O'Clock in the
afternoon, f. L. Waterman appeared for the
defendants, and no one appearing for the or
ators, it is on motion of said Waterman 0rd,T-
ID that said order TO show cause and the mo
ton for an injunction on which it is based
be, and the same is. dismissed.
Done at chambers at Woodstock Vermont,
this 10Th day of April, A. d. 1850.
JAMES BARRETT, Chancellor.