Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-06-02
THE INJUNCTION CASE.
ARGUMENT BEFORE JUDGE BARTON IN
THE CHAEcERY COURT.
A Motion for Continuance Refused-Argu-
msat BY kessrs. Wyndham Z. Meredith
and z. II. McGuire.

nca,iOu ytsleIuhl lTOm mum ioI ONti stA
hours hearing argument on the motion to
dissolve the Injunction issued few days ago
restraining the Union Passenger (Electric)
Railway Company from running It's line on
Cary street, and the Council OF the city of
Richmond from granting the company per-
mission to do so, and the Mayor or Acting
Mayor OF the city from approving any ordi-
nance granting the privilege.
Before the court met number OF lawyers
and businessmen who were interested In
the proceedings had gathered. Judge Holla-
day was also In the room, but left before
Judge Barton, who sat in his place, took the
bench.
The counsel on both sides were present
Mr.. +. III. Mcclure and Colonel Tazewell
Elicit represented the petitioners and Dir.
WyDdham X. Meredith aud Mr.. Charles V.
Meredith were counsel for the parties de-
iendlnt, the former for the Union Passenger
Railway Company and the latter for the city
OF Richmond.
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.
Mr.. c. V. Meredith started TO move to
dissolve the Injunction, when Mr.. Mcguire
said be desired before any motion was made
to ask for a continuance for a reasonable
time. The notice OF the contemplated mo-
LlOU 10 ultSOlft TIE lnluuCllOu udu ouiI bNru
served on counsel for the petitioners on
Tuesday. The case was one OF great magni-
tude and required thorough, careful,
aud faithful study; this they had not
been able 10 give it in the time allotted,
and for that reason he asked the continuance
Casting a glance at tue array Of law books in
front OF the defendants lawyers, Mr. Me
Guire said he thought the opposing counsel
had great deal OF law on their side, and he
was sure that there was a great deal on his;
| that he had some OF II in his head and some in
| the books by him, but he did not believe that
either side was ready TO argue the points in
VOWED eileclually.
Mr.. c. V. Meredith, In reply TO Mr.. Nc
| CURE, said lie was ready TO 90 on with the
case, and he felt sure that petitioners coun-
! sci must have found great dealo OF authority
| for their defence or they would not have
asked for the Injunction.
| Mr. Meredith cited authorities to show
why the case should not be continued.
| Colonel Elicit also joined in asking for
continuance. He hnd been unwell for several
days aud had not had time to prepare for the
case.
The Court decided TO go on with the case.
Mr.. W. R. MEREDITH BEGINS THE ARGUMENT.
MIR. w. r. Meredith then began argument
Tor the defence by saying that this was an
Injunction by which 1t was sought to obtain
the consent OF the judicial branch OF our
government to Interfere with the deliberate
functions OF a municipal legislative body !;
that the ground upon which this eXtraOr-
binary claim was asserted was:
First. The passage OF the Cary-street
ordinance would cause irreparable injury
to owners OF property on that street.
Second. That the passage Of the ordinance
would create a nuisance and 4 monopoly.
Third. That the Council had violated Its
trust by attempting to do an act which would
work irreparab.e injury to complainants;
and,
Finally, That the City Council had no au>
thority to grant this privilege.
Mr.. Meredith declared that all OF these al
legations might be admitted, and yet that
would give no jurisdiction to 4 court Of
equity to interfere with the legislative and
discretionary power vested by the charter
in the Common Council. Citing from
Jeferson's Notes on Virginia and sew
eryl legal authorities, he insisted that
the basis OF our Government was tho
keeping distinct the thIee coordinate
branches that constituted it-nanely, the
legislative. the judicial, and the executive.
| Though the authorities were conflicting,
|
OF those cases that held that court OF
equity could not interfere with the passage
OF an ordinance, though II might enioin
the rights given by such ordinance
After it had been passed; that the
only exceptions that should, perhaps, be
made 10 this sound rule were where fraud
or bribery was alleged and proved; that
| there Was no such allegation in complainanps
bill; that they merely asserted that they be-
lieyed that The Board Of Aldermen were
going to pass the Cary.street franchise over
the Mayors veto. He cited several authOr-
ties to show that such an unsubslantal and
unsubstantiated allegation was not sufficient
to give the Court Jurisdiction.
lie tnen went on to show that even taking
that class OF cases which plaintiffs counsel
claimed decided that court Of equity would
interfere with the passage OF an ordinance
where ii was shown that the ordinance was
beyond the power OF the Council. He cited
authorities to prove that 1t must sp-
pear from the charter Of the cuy aud
upon the face Of the ordinance that
such want OF power existed. He quoted
the city charter which allows the Council
TO authorize the running OF horse.cars, and
claimed that the expression horse-cars was
not restrictive but descriptive; that the
charter said nothing about the motive power
by which cars were 10 be run, but left IL to
the discretion OF the Council, where il pro-
peJlg belonged; that II was due to the pOy>
erty Of our American dialect that the word
borse-car was used In c0ntradistincti0n TO
rairoad.cars; that he was told that in Eng
land the word tIamway.car was used TO de-
note cars for local and city traffic, and that
this word had not yet been commonly intro.
duccd here; that II the word hOrse-car was
10 be taken in restrictive sense the City
Council were authorized 10 allow only cars
drawn by horscs-not even mules could be
used, according 10 cOmplsinants, and there
fore the CITY railway had already forfeited its
charter by the use OF this aforementioned
animal.
He cited authority showing that the mo-
tive power by which cars are run was no
test OF the Legality Of the franchise, and that
because modern convenience and progress
demanded q motive power which was un-
known in the days OF Blackstone there was
no reason for claiming that its use was ille-
gal-unauthOrized by the charter.
The next point that he took up was the
| claim that allowing these cars TO run up Cary
street was q new use OF that street for which
the owners OF the adjacent property should re-
ceiye compensation. He claimed that the run.
ming of electric-cars on Cary street was not a
| new use OF the street, but was new mode
OF using the original easement which the
public had in this street. Streets were
dedicated to the travel OF persons and
Of traffic, and these cars were simply new
and improved method for local travel, and
were identical with the uses for which the
street was originally lald on. lie went on TO
show tha. advantage the electric railway bad
proved to be for the city; how 1t met all the
modern needs OF rapid transit; bad
increased the value OF taxable pro.
perty, and had attracted persons and
capital to our city; that II had
done more than this; that IL was doing away
with the petty iealousieS and local differences
to which our city on account OF its peculiar
topography was peculiarly liable, and II per-
mitted to have Its Cary-street route and
complete its belt line around the city II
would bind us together not only with the
iron bands OF progress and prosperity, but
with the electric current OF sympathy and
union.