New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-09-04
THE NETWORK AND LONG BRANCH.
THE ANSWER OF THE NEw-JERsEY CENTRAL TO
THE SUIT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA.


THE NETWORK AND LONG BRANCH.
THE ANSWER OF THE NEw-JERsEY CENTRAL TO
THE SUIT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA.
TRENTON, N. j. Sept. 3.-Ex-Cha ncellor
Williamson, OF counsel for the NewJersey Central Rail-
road Company filed an answer In the Uni. ID state.
Circuit Court afternoon, 70 the amended bad OF the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company, touching the SUN
over the New.Y0rk and Long Branch road, which has
been pending for some months The final argumenfs
take place ON fourth Tuesday OF this month Ths
Centras answer begins by setting forth that on octo
Der g. 1873 the defendant entered into agreements
for the building and completion of the New. York and
Long Branch Railroad and in virtue of Agreements
took Of and completed the said road; that
subsequently the Pennsylvania road entered into an
agreement with the Central for tue OF the road
on which their cars; that tins arrangement was
to continue for five year, that 1t Is that the
defendants embarrassed TO be unable to i'm
prove the road in accordance with the demands OF
the largely increased travel; that application for
such Improvement was made TO the Pennsyvania
Company andhat the ater's expressed purpose build
a competing line 10 the seashore stations merely
threat, which partially successful in soaring the
CentraIs stockholders. such road they had rgat
to build.
The defendants, continuing deny that the Penn
sylvania Railroad Company engaged on or before
January 1892 in transporting passengers or freight
from New York. Philadelphia, etc, via Monmouth juno
lion aud Sea Grit 10 all places along tine Hew-fOrk and
Long Branch line They deny that the threatened
would shorter and declare 1t would be miles
longer. They claim that the purpose declared In the
compainants bill 10 this rad 10 be constructed
and then lease II, is unlawful They deny that the
cever OF the Central did execute and deliver the Drexd
agreement IN virtue the Chaneeilogs order referred
to IN the amended bill They admit that at the time Of
the execution the said agreement tine NeY-Iork and
Long Branch Company contemplated the borrowingof
money to pay debts and lay double track and that
some time prior said agreement the directors passed
resolutions for that purpose aud authorized Issuing
of bonds TO the amount or Si,3oO'Oo0. with
mortgage to cover the The defendants deny
they had any understanding with Dfexi Company,
such as alleged with any Others, but the defendants
were informed and charge be true that certain parties
unauthorized by them negotiated Win Drexel COM
pany 10 take the bonds They deny that the proceeds OF
the bonds so issued received by the Long Braica
Railroad aud $500 900 thereof paid to the Central bus
admit that the amount realized by the Long Braaci
Company from the sale OF $l4o0,000 worth OF bonds
the other 81 100000 remaBng ia their hands was 81,
$4,000 OF which $4,000 subject TO the call Jr
payment for bettcrment OF the property and thsi as
balance was applied the repayment OF moneys IT,
ceiyed from the Central.
The defendants deny that the Chancellor ever aatio-
rized the agreement referred TO- They claim that ths
was no board OF directors authorized 70 bind the COM
pauy agreement entered iuto between TO
railroad companies. Receiver Lathrop, the answer
stsics was denied the right by the Cnan Gel
that the Pennsylvania road had spest
mn TO April ] less than 5000 preparing
for the occupation the threatened Road aud that ICY
never expended dollar on the New'Ycrk and l. Nc
Branca road or any 81 It's appurtenances These ae-
PENDANTS respectfully insist that the suppression OF 10
supple nenar agreement claimed by the coDPlainsR
10 De part OF agreement which they seek 10 enforce
aud affecting ana controlling IL IA its most essential
features, and without the acknowledgment et 'as
VALIDITY by the defence the SAID complanAnbs
refuse performance OF tne agreement OF whicn
the object OF oil t. enforce Is suca suppression ot
the case deprive the complainant OF any reiei III
equity. -. 4. l.. -. ~ ,,,-
The defendants further answer that II Is not the pur-
nose of the Central rOd TO harra5s annoy or NeN lo
complaants by anything they have done 0rnendtOa
They intended to fner rights 10 take ther chte
m, of the said road independent OF the sald agree
,ru but are wlitlng taaG Tue sad compainants ZOE
tner freight and passenger traffic. shan nave such us'
and on such terms said railroad as any taree DIS
interested railroad shall declare TO Dc equthe la
They say AT they are IN g1od cohdo. 20 Ioes
ALI financial obligations and they suDDlt tnat 10 -
against public policy TO enforce the agreement OF Janu
AIRY g. 1882 ii ought be allowed b any court OK
equity. Finally tbey deny the right OF Tue SOuIt 70 ~
crre IN the premises, aud pray that the Ou may Vo
With