Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-03-30
NOW IN THE COURTS.
Equity Proceedings Against the New
Street Railway Company.
A BIG LEGAL BATTLE HAS BEGUN
Between the Traction Companies and the
Duquesne Concern.
OTHER MATTERS OF COURT RECORD

| On the receipt of intelligence from Har-
risburg that the Attorney General had re-
fused to allow a writ of quo warranto
against the Duquesne Street Railway Com
pany, three suits were entered Yesterday in
Common Pleas, No. g They were the Lari-
mer and Lincoln Street Railway Company
VS.. the Larimer Street Railway Company;
the Duquesne Traction Company and the
city OF Pittsburg; the Ellsworth Passenger
Street Railway VS.. the Duquesne Street
Railway Company, and the Duauesne Trac-
tion Company; the Central Transit
Company and the Pittsburg Traction Com
pany, lessees, VS.. the Craig Street Railway
Company. Thomas S. Bigelow, President
Of the Pittsburg companies and Vice Presi-
dent of the Pittsburg Traction Company
fathers the suits, and the counsel are
George Shiras, Jr., George c. Wilson, John
G.. Johnston, Johns McCleave, and j. G.
Johnston.
The first bill, in which the Craig Street
Railway Company is defendant, sets forth
the incorporation of the Central Transit
Company, now leased by the Railway Trac-
tion Company. its claim to right of way
from Fifth and Liberty avenues over the
hill to Penn avenue, with such branches as
right by occupation was given December 4,
1886, and also to branch on Shady lane
from Fifth avenue to Penn avenue on July
g, 1887.
SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS.
These rights and franchises now belong
to the Pittsburg Traction Company as the
lessee of the Central Transit Company. 1t
is alleged that the Craig Street Railway
Company pretends to be a corporation, in
corporated December 16, 1889, and claims
right to construct a line from the corner of
Craig and Forbes avenue along Craig on
Bayard, Neville, Center Roup, Negley,
Bryant and Highland avenue. This route
for the part along Center avenue between
Neville and Roup street is coincident with
the route of the Central Transit Company.
On February %, 1890, defendant obtained
city ordinance granting it a right to
construct railway over these streets. The
Duquesne Traction Company has made or
is about to make an agreement with the
Craig Street Company for the construction
OF line The city, it is claimed, has, in
violation of the act of May 16, 1889, under
taken by special and particular grants of
authority to give the Craig street and
Duquesne companies the right to enter upon
the streets, and they are about to do so with
out any lawful right. The defendants want
to construct an electric railway over this
route, and intend and threaten to resist the
plaintiffs in the construction of their line
The Court is asked to decree that the plain
tiff mas the lawful power and authority to
build Its road, and that Councils have only
power of regulation and not of prohibition,
special legislation or discrimination, and
that defendants have no right on plaintiffs |
portion of the route. The Court is also |
asked to restrain the defendant from laying |
tracks and the city's officers from interfer- |
ence. |
CLAIMS OF THE OTHERS.
The bill of the Ellsworth Passenger Street |
Railway claims a route from Neville street |
and Fifth avenue on Neville street and |
Ellsworth avenue and Penn avenue. The |
complaint is made that the Duquesne Com |
pany invades. the domain of the plaintiff !
named, and the allegations are similar as in |
the first named case. 1t is further held:
'The intent and meaning in the proviso |
in the act of May IA, 1889, declaring that |
mo street passenger railway shall be con-
structed by any company incorporated under
this act within the limits of any city, bor-
ough or township without the consent of the
local authorities thereof is only to enable
the authorities to require and provide such
reasonable regulations in the construction,
and operation of such rail-
ways as the convenience and safety
of the public may require,
and was not intended and does
not confer upon them power by unreasonable
refusal OF the consent thereto meant to defeat
and render void the franchise conferred by
the Commonwealth, and especially it is not
the intent or meaning to enable the author
tiles in the giving of their consent to prefer
one company to another previously incor-
porated, and thus to confer upon such
favored company a franchise which the act
expressly and in terms withholds, and to
deny the company first incorporated the
superior right granted to it by the General
Assembly,"
The Larimer and Lincoln claims incorpo.
ration on August IA, 1889, to run cars on
Collins avenue, Station street, Larimer ave-
nue., Shetland street and Lincoln avenue to
the city line. 1t is charged that the Du-
quesne Traction Company is about to lease
the Larimer Street Railway, one Of the
plaintiffs branches, and encroach on its
route along Larimer avenue between Station
and Mayfower streets.
The same relief is asked as in the first
named suit.