Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-16

liolh tle court.nOuSc square, and bv con- 4
lerripg With one OF two members Of the /
citizens committee to know II they would I
give the right-oi-way through the town
on that line. comply fully with the obi. ]
cations growing out Of the contract with
In order to put the citizens
at default the appellee should have
selected the most practicable route and
surveyed and established II into the town
70 within half Emile OF the court-house
and then have notified the citizens' com
mittee TO secure the right-ofway and
depot-grounds aud made Gin the language
81 right-of-way bond) 'demand' OF The
same for the purposes stated; not uutil
THIS was done could tho citizens
have succeeded TO secure hy
purchase or condemnation the
titles to tie land until this was done
they could not have known what ground
to secure; nor had the citizens the power
to have instituted proceedings In their
own names to condemn the land. IL is
not tue only legitimate inference that at
the time the obligations sued upon were
executed. All parties understood that
the company would select its route, cause
II TO be surveyed as also the depot
grounds, and II the citizens should fail 10
contract with the owners for rs purchase,
then the company would institute pro-
ceedlngs for its condemnation, and call
upon citizens TO pay whatever damages
and costs were thereby incurred? If
such was not the understanding, why did
they require of the citizens the Indemnity
or right-oi-way bond?n Ta,s, con.
tinues the court we regard as the turn
ing point in the case. The plain
uh specially denies that the
town Of Bolton, or citizens therefrom,
rendered to plaintiff depot grounds and
right of way through said town, and spe-
ciully denies that said citizens were ever
willing or able to donate to plaintiffs the
necessary depot grounds and right OF way
through said town. But is this true2
There Is certainly very little proof OF it in
the record. The only proof adduced Is
that sometime after the obligations had
been signed, the agent Of the company
conferred with one or two OF the citizens
committee, who expressed the opinion
that the people were notable TO bear the
expense of locating the track and depot
grounds so near the center Of the town,
inasmuch as it would cost about ton
thousand dollars.
This evidence of the inability OF the
people of Bolton to furnish the depot
ground seems TO US extremely feeble.
Such evidence of inability certain.
ly did not satisfy the saglcious aud
skillfu agents of the company when they
were getting up the $4,000 subSidy--and
| nghtof-way bond--to the corporate
limits In that case the companies in
tcrests were concerned, hence there its
agents were not satisfied with the opin.
ions Of one or two men that the people
would pay the sum demanded. SO faI
| from 1t, they required notes and bonds
drawn with all the strlctness that inge
uuity could deyIse-with the "utmosi
strictness OF the letter that killeth.n But
when the papers were signed and the
people were bound, the time came wnel
the duties of the company and the inter
ests OF the people, who had undertaken
so much, were to be considered II WA
then that the companies agents upon thu
slightest supposition OF one or two per
sons disregarded the rights and inter
ests of the citizens and located its tract
and depot to suit its own pleasure
We are led to these conclusions by III
testimony of the plaintiffs own vii
nesses. They do not disguise the fact
indeed they distinctly express it---tha
their chief object next to getting III
subscriptions TO the subsidy was I
keep people in the dark as to the local
ing OF It's road aud the depot The coul
then reviews the testimony OF severe
witnesses, among them Col Waite
Gresham, the well-known attorney 10
the Santa Fe road. Quoting from hi
testimony Mr.. Gresham is made to 50
"that his chief business was to keep S
. lent, !" or as he expressed 1t, to "kee
mum" and "ward off inquiry" A
this time continues court. Both wi
nesses saw the people OF Bolton WEI
deceived, or, as they expressed II, wen
"deceiying themselves" but the
seem to have thought their duty to u
company required them not to undeceiN
: the people but rather to encourage II
! deception. "To keep the word
promise TO the ear but break 1t to u
hope"
After quoting the language OF the rigt
j of way bond previously mentioned
, statement OF facts the court says; II
: form of the bond and also the notes
A appears from the testimony had bee
: agreed upon before they came TO Belto
l. and concludes, now the route actual
r located and built upon did not enter u
j town upon either of the lines along whi'
Z. the people had secured the right Of wa
e but running some distance above .
n Birdsdale route it passed north OF u
: northeast corner o. the town tract, tn
t in order to touch the corporate limits
r detected a little south (or as the TIL
5 Judge states in his findings OF fact eve
c gently curves to the south until 1t cross
I the corporate limits, and then runnil
1 along lust inside the corporate limits fol
$ few hundred yards il Every gently curry
v TO the north and passes Wltheub the q
d limitsto tract of land owned by compan
:, The plaintiffs having obtained the oblia
tlons sued upon by the means here
8 stated, this court is asked TO enforce th'
n collection. This we cannot 90, oecau
& IN our opinion there was In the VINO
= Transaction want of that good faith a
G fair deallrg which the makers OF the
d obi rattons had right to expect ana
n mapd OF the company. This cause nav
t been tried before the court without
d Jury. IL Is ordered that the Judgment
t reversed and that such Judgment pc Ie
b dered in this court as should nave pc
Q rendered below-that is that Judgment
II rendered for the appellants.
Y -------.ss----------
y An End 20 Bone suraping.
d Edward Shepherd Of HARRISBURG, II
Q saws. aHaying received so much Oene