Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-12-15
THIRD DISTRICT COURT.
The Street Railroad Case. - The
Contested Election Matter. Etc.

Greater pertisn Of Saturday after
noon In the Third District Cour
wss occupied with the argument
OF COUNSEL in the Injunction prc
eeedings instituted by certain prcp
erty ognsre on First S.st and Sec
ond South streets ssainst the cleo
tric railroad ines. Counsel for tn,
plaintiffs contenied that the CITY
Council had probably inalyer,ent
iy GRANTED a right 10 the Salt LAX.
rapid Transit Company whic. hsG
already been granted &c tie Sal
Lake City Railroad CGnplny, anc
that was - tie granting OF the W..
OF the center OF the street for stree
railway purposes TO both companies,
When the first-named company
found the center Of the street al.
ready occupied, it had assumed The
right TO build lis track on any other
portion of the street uncccupiea.
As the company did rot com.
ply with the ar.Schise, counsel
assumed thai The City Council did
not srsr. the compahy the righ; to
Ia track where il was reconstructed,
Ii the company is allowed to operate
4 road on second South street. ceun-
sci cOnienGed that IL would. FOX all
practical purposes, I've sn5veftcd
from it original lsirgrJsc. Counsel
further stated that Il the compsny
-ruid lay TIE track complained OF
tiov cJ-!6 with equal justice cover
the streets with tracks and drive of
s;i traffic. The infringement would
1ase nn an aspect OF legaliseg
robbery, and would place tl.e rsup-
erty owners at tho nseiCy OF q
C!-y Council whios might ueeln Il
iit 70 subveFt the use OF the streets
from their original purposes. To de-
l'ri"c property owsitrs of the right
OF access u their property was 10
virtual. = deprive them Of the use Of
ihe property.
Counsel Tor the First Street r,o-
petty owners said that IN the law.
relating 10 highways. whether the
title cenes from a municipality or
from any other source, or whether
iaken by compulsory r.eans, The
rights OF the alGL.sr remains. He
has 4 right 70 the highway, in the
proper sense Of that term, aud
any Infringement, by devoting its
U.s. IN any way inconsistent with
las rights, was an inifaetion OF r;s
right. Easement beiar "a the
nature Of property. :. was not in the
province q any body 20 iegislate il
away without just compensation.
Jae use Of First Street by an
e.ectric caT line was suhjecting it 10
a uew use which impalrs the proper
y Fight the 2but,e- has in the high
Way. COncediRy that the ahutters'
right to the highway is impai-G. ~
the railroad, cUBnsei further
declared tina: tire Grant of the
iranchis; s. rold, because the
franchis.s make 10 provision
.Or compensation 10 property
cSner>; property cannot he
.or public use un-
less Z method Of compensation Is
provided for. In a city like this
The sJ;ltier Is charged exclusively
for the improvements in the high
ways. ami yet = Legislative body
may give one-haif or the whole OF Il
away without any COMPENSATION
being awarded the property owners.
Cc:use! declared that the second
franchise should be declared void
"a tie grOaGi that it grants exactly
-hat was granted 10y the first
franchise.
Fhs Arguments were in progress
when the court adjourned.
The following business was also ,
Transacted:
IN the cas; OF Adams & Keisel /.
SAT- Company Vs. ". Glilliam, the I
Icler Of dismissal was set aside and 1
.he ease re!nstated.
IN the ease Of Michael AIshOncy .
=. William Mlhoney q al, tie /
.tfaU.. % certain o. the defendants 4
s.s entered.
In the case u Catherine Mill -. |
Nicho!as Fall ner Il al, the appeal |
vas dismissed.
IN the Csc OF !. Z. Jeffrey et al. (
-. N. {. D5nelsDn ct 81, judgment /
was rendered for plaintiff as praye..
The ease Of ]. {. Stirling W..
ere,z- Il Williams was dismissed /
IN motion Of the plaintiff, as was
also the c2se o. " r Stirling IS. I
Henry Schoville.
Tie divorce case Of LeouOTa Hum I
piiFies was called M. The plaintiff 4
showed that for a long time the de- ,
.eniant had failed 10 support her
lnu finally deserted her. The de-
cree was granted as prayed.
In the contested election eases % Z
the People sx rel. -. Louis Cohn
e. a.. III which the demurrer was
]verTuiei and the Judgments enter
N for the plaintiffs, the defendants I
..ere allowed stay OF twenty days
n which 10 appeal.
The following cases were disposed
u before Judge Zane to-day:
IN the case Of johnson ". Loven-
iahi: time FOR filing statement for
sew trial allowed until January list.
Ia the case Of David Pearl -. J.
y. Whitehead; ten days additional
ime allowed in which to answer.
In the case u Michael Mahoney
=. William Mahoney; decree OF par
iti0n entered and commissioners
.FTsinted.
Fhe trial Of the case Of Ne,ier ".
lOuEE et al. was sc: for the l5Ih
u~;-
The clse Of ThGmls w. Jennings
I NJ. IS. salt Lake City Railway
company; trial resumed.
The DOoley Block Corporation rs.
;ait Lake Rapil Transit Company;
ria! resumed.
Musical Festival.
We learn that the musical de-
-