The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-10-26

render it wholly unit and unsafe for use:
that the space between the tracks of each
of said companies and between the two
tracks of the companies, constituting the
greater part of said street, cannot be used
Tor the reason that it is above the ordinary
grade, and is filled with cobble stones and
with heavy iron rails and tracks OF the
companies, SO that no teams can drive
thereon.
Plaintiffs further allege that the said
distinctions in the said street have been
made by the consent convenience and fraud
utent and corrupt arrangements between
the present city council and the said com
panies. to wit, the Salt Lake city railroad
company and the Salt Lake City Rapid
Transit company, and the said city council,
Its officers and agents. and the SAID rail-
road companies have conSplred together to
rob, ruin and defraud plaintiffs of the use
OF said street; that the distractions afore-
said have become a common nuisance to
said street, and have deprecated the prop
erty of the adjacent holders thereof to the
extent of from 25 per cent. to 80 per cent !;
that said property has, prior to the said OBJ
structions, situated upon avery fashionable
street, and the property was OF great value; ;
that the injury TO each Of said plaintiffs is
in excess OF s.. COO
Plaintiffs further allege that the Salt
Lake City railroad company commenced to
run cars upon the said track, SO built by
them along said street and through said
block, Oh Sunday, the 18th day of October;
that the first cars were run on that day for
the purpose of preventing any Injunction
being brought against the said company for
running the cars thereon; that the said
Rapid Transit company have not yet C m
menced to run cars, but threaten to do so,
either in their own interest or in the inter
est Ct their co-defendant, the Salt
Lake City railroad company. And plaintiff
alleges upon information and belief, that
the said Rapid Transit company and the
said Salt Lake City railroad company have
combined and consolidated said roads, and
that the two companies are run in one and
the same interest; that the said road was
constructed north Of the centre of said
| street by the Salt Lake City railroad com
! pany for the purpose of leaving room for
the Rapid Transit company, and the said
! last named company has constructed its
tt; C on the south side, so as to leave room
for the Salt Lake City railroad company
and 1t is the Intention and purpose of the
two companies to operate the said TWO
roads together, to avoid the terms of their
charters, which prohibit each Of them from
having two lines of track upon SAID
street, by pretending to run under
another name, hut in truth and il
Tact. the said tracks to be used for one anG
the same company, SO that the entire street
will be occupied by the said company
whichever it may be, which represents the
consolidated interests of the said two com
panies.
Plaintiffs further allege that the sale
three defendants, thus conspiring together
have INSTRUCTED First street through The
entire length OF said block from First
street to A street; that said obstruction con
stitutes continuing and constant nuisance
/ to each of the abntting property owners
that said abutting owners are each the
owners of the said street to the centre
thereof in free, and have the right to have
the right to have the said street kept free
and unobstructed for passage by team am
foot, and that Salt Lake city has accepted
the said trust of Keeping the suit
street free and unoostructed for the pas
sage of teams and by foot; that in violation
of said trust, the said city has neglected
and does still neglect and refuse to compe
the railroad companies to conform to thei,
charters and permits the said railroad com
pauies to obstruct said street.
The plaintiffs then go on to allege tina
before any cars commenced running, the.
asked the city council TO compel the i've
companies to conform to their charter AM
to run on one track in the center of tn
street; that the companies each claim t
have an exclusive right 70 the portion o
the street occupied by them, for the reason
that they use electric motors and it is no
convenient Tor them to slacken speed t.
accommodate teams; that said motor
scare and brighten horses and their use Of
this street is nuisance and their use Of
said street was not contemplated when
was dedicated
Wherefore plaintiffs pray judgment tina
the railroad companies be enioined fror
running cars over the said tracks until, b.
some arrangement, both can run cars upo
the same track in the center of the street
that Salt Lake city be required to perforr
the duty rs trustee to remove the said OBJ
structions from the street and to keep
free for use for transportation by team an
on foot. Further, that the defendants b
required to remove the track from ia
street and that they all be required to pa
the costs of this proceeding.
Arthur Brown Is the attorney for tn
4 plaintiffs.