Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-12-03
THIS THEIR ANSWER.
The Defendants In the Jarvis. COnklin
Suit Reply
TO THE RECENT ALLEGATIONS
Placed on the File OF the Third District
Court. - The City Railroad
Company. Declaration.

In the case OF samuel NJ. Jarvis and
Roland II. Conklin W. the Salt Lake
City Railway Company ct al, the
defendants today filed tho follow.
ing answer In the Third District Court:
Now come said defendants, and for
answer to the complaint herein, deny
that the board OF directors named In
said complaint M defendants therein,
have without the consent OF the plain
tiiis aud against their objections or
otherwise, constructed or are now
OF Grating lines Of street railway out.
aide Of the corporate limits Of said city
Of Salt Lake; or that the number OF miles
Of railway A. constructed or operated Ia
two ami n quarter miles, or any num-
her Of miles or any distance exceeding
about throe.fourths OF mile, or that
the cost to said railway company In the
construction OF sald line or lines OF rail-
way outside OF the corporate limits Of
the city Of Salt Lake IL So, 900, or any
cost Whatever exceeding 5000; or that
Mt the time tho said railway was go
constructed outside OF the corporate
limits, or by reason thereof, the fn.
ances ~ the company were In AN em-
barrAs.ed condition, as alleged or other
wise; or that there WINS no business
necessity Tor the construction Of the
extra mileage Of railway, or that the
same was constructed through terri.
tory or at n time when II was well
known 10 tho said board OF directors
and oillcera Of said company, or other.
wise, that tho same would not be-
profitable In It's operation 10 the com.
pany.
Or that the operation OF the said extra
mileage ~ railway nccersi,atcd the
purchase VI equipment or extra motor
power, or ears, or that to operate the
rame required an extra force OF motor.
men anu conductor, or neccssltAted
the employment OF large, or any
force OF men In the repair department
Of said railway company, Or has other
wise largely, or at all, except IN "A
slight degree, increased the daily eX.
penses OF the said company; or that
the amount by which said daily ex-
pcnscs increased Is largely, OF ut all, IN
excess OF the earnings Of those portions
Of the said railway system, or that the
operation Is At great or any loss 10 the
sliid railway company.
On the contrary, said defendants
nllegc that the construction u the said
lines Of railroad outside Of the corpor.
nte limits Of salt Lake City was pro.
jociel aud determined upon prior 10
The glst day OF April, 1891; was for the
PURPOSE OF connecting the race track,
situated about one half mile south OF
the southern boundary line OF Salt
Lake City, with the railway system
belonging 10 the defendant railway
company. Tint such construction wac
determined upon f1r the reason that n
would operate IA an important feeder
10 the said railway system, aud secure
90 It large amount OF patronage Of
persons going TO and from tho said race
track, ~ well rs additions 10 the city
rapidly filling with population, and
add greatly 10 the value aud profit OF
tald system.
AMI that the said line OF railway
could be constructed without expense
% the said railway company, money
necessary for Its building, construction
and equipment having been donated
and rendered 10 the said company by
private individuals, through whose
lands said line Of railway was 10 be-
extended.
That at the time the construction Of
the said Hue Of r0hd was determined
upon, plaintiff Samuel NJ. Jarvis was
member OF the board OF directors Of
the said company, and the vicg-presi.
dent thereof, anu well knew the pur.
po-e aud advantage which would nc.
crne to the I'D company by reason OF
the construction anu operation OF said
line. And the same was determined
upon with his tull knowledge, consent
aud approval, anu without any otJec-
tons on his lnrt Whatever.
said defendants allcge upon intorma.
tlon and belief that the plaintiff Roland
~. COnklln, was also aware OF the pur'
pose To construct said Hue 81 railway,
anu consented TO and approved the
same.
That the line extending To Fort
Douglas, which Is claimei by plain
THIS TO be outside OF the corporate
limits OF the city, was determined upon
and the right OF way therefor secured
during the Tine that the said Samuel
NJ. JARVIS Yns the vlce'prcsidcnt OF
the snid company anu memOer OF the
board Of directors thereoi, anu was
constructed anu put IN operation with
the iuli knowledge and consent OF both
OF said plaintiffs, and without any OBJ
lection ON their part Whatever.
That at the time the said line TO tho
racei track and lis construction was de-
termlned upon and at the time OF the |
construction aud putting In operation
Of the ne extending TO Fort Douglas,
the defendants Francis Armstrong |
ana spencer Clswson were not mem.
befs OF the board OF directors OF said |
company, nuu were mol IN any manner