The Elk County advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Pa.) 1868-1883, 1881-08-11
THE RAILROAD WAR
Hearing Of the Injunction Case In the
Court Of Common Pleas.
From the Elk Democrat of last weekl

July an application was made by the
New York, Lake Erie and Western
coal and railroad company for pre-
liminary injunction restraining the
Pittsburg and New York railroad
company from obstructing or inter
fering with the construction of rail-
road from Alton to Falls Creek, and
that the court granted said prelimin-
ary injunction, fixing Tuesday, Aug.
2, as the time for hearing, to ascer-
tain whether the injunction should be
made perpetual, or whether it should
be dissolved, that on the 2lst and 22d
of July said preliminary injunction
was served upon the Pittsburg and
New York railroad company, and
that work upon their line was stopped
at once; that on the 27th of July the
Pittsburgh aud New York railroad
company made application before
Judge Brown, at Warren, praying for
the dissolution of the preliminary in
junction granted Oh the 10Th of July,
which prayer was granted without
prejudice to the New York, Lake
Erie and Western coal and railroad
company, and with the privilege of
reinstatement after a hearing; that
the same day that the preliminary in.
junction was Dissolved, work was re-
sumed upon the line of the Pittsburg
and New York railroad company.
Tuesday of this week being the day
fixed for the hearing, court was opened
at A. NJ, with Judges Brown and
Jones upon the bench. The New
York, Lake Erie and Western coal
and railroad company, the, plaintiff,
was represented by Hon. Rasselas
Brown, of Warren; Hon. John G.
Hall, of Ridgway; Geo. Bddle, ESQ of
of fPhiladelphia,a and Geo. A. Rathbun,
Ridgway, and the Pittsburg and New
York railroad company, the defendant
by Hon. Geo. ~. jerks, of Brookville;
Thos. F. Wentworth, of New York;
Rufus Lucore and j. NJ. Schran, of
Ridgway.
The case was opened for plaintiff by
Mr.. Rathbun by reading an amend
ment to the bill of Plaintiff; the act of
incorporation of the Wilcox and
Howard Hill Improvement company
(under whose charter the plaintiff
proposes to build the road); affidavit
of B. d. Hammond, secretary of the
Wilcox and Howard Hill improve
ment company; minutes OF meetings of
Wilcox aud Howard Hill improve
ment company; affidavit OF Thomas
L Kane, president of Wilcox and
Howard Hill improvement company;
affidavit of o. w. Barnes, chief engi-
neer of Buffalo, Bradford and Pittsburg
railroad extension; affidavit of Robt.
Harris, vice president and General
manager of the New York, Lake Erie
and Western railroad company; atii-
davit of A. A. Clay, cashier of the
Wilcox and Howard Hill improve
ment company, stating that he paid
out $50, 900 for work OH the road; affi-
davit of +. S. ID. Braughten; affidavit
of a. b. NJ 'Donough certified COPY
of record from NJ kean county, chang
ing name from Wilcox and Howard
Hill improvement company to New
York, Lake Erie and Western rail-
road company; a number of deeds and
releases.
Objection was made by Defendants
attorneys to the reception of all docu-
mentary evidence that did not apply
to that portion of the line lying be-
tween Johnsonburg and Ridgway.
Mr.. Wentworth opened the case for
defence by reading the answer to
plaintiffs bill; certificates of search in
Elk and M'Kean counties, showing
the conveyance of lands to the Wilcox
and Howard Hill improvement COM
pany; extracts from reports OF General
Kane, as president of the Wilcox and
Howard Hill improvement company,
as found in the reports of the Secre-
tary of Internal Affairs; affidavits of
+. E. Willard, w. c. Malopey, Geo.
p. Cornell, G. r. Farley, r. l. Camp.
bell, John b. Wheeler, J. n. Rhines
and Geo. r. Woodward. In addition
to the above, the defense offered the
charter of incorporation of the
Pittsburg and New York Railroad
company.
In rebuttal, plaintiff offered affida,
Wits of a. A. Clay, Julius Jones and
H. G.. Clay, and acts of Assembly of
April and II, 1867.
The evidence being closed Mr.
Hall opened the argument for plain
tiff, and contended that the charter of
the Wilcox and Howard Hill improve
ment company, under which the
plaintiff company proposes to build
the road, is valid, the provision
of the Constitution of 1874 not
applying thereto, and denied that
the franchises of the plaintiff conf
pany could be called in question in
this issue. In support of these posi-
tions, he cited number of authorities,
and supplemented them by a very
able and ingenious argument. Dis
cusing the question of good faith, he
recited the fact that the plaintiff in
1870 expended $4,000, and in 1871
made further expenditure of $26, 900
making total of $4,000. He occu-