The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-04-26
FIGHTING THE CENTRAL.
THE SMITH INJUNCTION SUIT AR
GUEO IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

GUEO IN THE SUPERIOR COURT.
Judge Falligant Takes the Papers and
Reserves His Decislon-The Grounds
Upon Which the Argument for the
Injunction Were Bassd-The Gen.
trails Reply.
The injunction suit of Ridgeway Smith
against the Central Railroad and Banking
Company Of Georgia and the Central Trust
Company of New York to prevent the former
corporation from issuing and delivering
$4,000, 900 worth Of bonds to the latter, was
argued before Judge Falligaut in the supe-
rio= court yesterday.
Judge W. W. Montgomery of Augusta
appeared for Mr.. Smith, and Pat Calhoun.
Esq, and Alex C. King, Esq, Of Calhoun,
King & Speulding of Atlanta. and Capt.
Henry Cunningham and r. G. Erwin, Esq,
Of this city represented the corporations.
The Central, In lis answer 10 the injunc-
ton, contended that it had the privilege of
issuing the bonds under the charter of the
Macon and Western railroad, which it alb
sorbed. That act Of incorporation gave the
Macon and Western the privilege of issuing
bonds and executing mortgages for itself
and aiding other internal improvements.
JUDGE MoNTGoMERY's ARGUMENT.
Judge Montgomery opened the arguments
and spoke for nearly en- hour. He attacked
the act under which the Central claimed Its
powers, and said that the legislature never
intended, IN granting the charter, to confer
such broad powers upon the corporation.
He intimated that the clause giving the
road the power to issue bonds and execute
mortgages to aid in internal improvements
was slipped in without the knowledge or
consent OF the lawmakers. Judge Mont~
gomery dwelt particularly on the fact that
the Macon and Western bad never taken
advantage Of the language of the act, show
irg plainly that it did not consider it
valid. He quoted from decisions thai
a railroad had to have its
powers specifically defined. II it was TO be
allowed to subscribe to an iron mill, or any,
thing of like character, it would have to be
so stated. He closed by denying that the
consolidation cf the Central with the Macon
and Western carried any such privileges as
it claimed in the issuance of the bonds.
PAT oALHoUN's SPEECH.
Pat Calhoun, ESQ.,, followed Judge Mont
gomery. He ridiculed the Judges position
and quoted the language of the act of con-
solidation, which said that all the rights,
privileges, immunities, properties and fran
chises of the Macon and Western were con-
ferred on the Central Railroad and Banking
Company of Georgia under its charter.
he said that Judge Montgomery had
presented two remarkable propositions. In
the first place that the act was too broad TO
admit OF any such construction, and in the
second, that it was not broad enough. Mr..
Calhoun had always understood that the
burden Of proof in such cases as these was
. -. -. A. l..
PENDANTS did not have the right 10 the pow
ers claimed but in this Instance the attempt
of the opposing counsel was to compel the
defendant to prove that it had the powers.
Mr.. Calhoun became enthusiastically elo-
quent when he began to detail the great
benefits derived by the state of Georgia
from the work of the Central and other
railroads in aiding internal improvements
by assisting other roads to be built. He
wanted to know where Georgia would be
to-day were it not for the public-spiritednes
of her legislators in granting railroads the
power of aiding other enterprises.
Mr.. Calhoun quoted from the history of
Georgia from the establishment Of its first
railroad to the present time, and showed
thu great strides Savannah had made
through their agencies
OPPOSED TO A NARROW POLICY.
Judge Montgomery. he said, wanted the
railroads held down to narrow path, no
matter what powers might be conferred
upon them by the charter. He resented
Judge Montgomery's intlmation about the
slipping in of a clause IN the act of the Ma
con and Western, as an imputation on the
honesty of the Legislators for which there
was no foundation.
Mr.. Calhoun closed his argument by
reading from numerous decisions, showing
that the Central railroad was acting fully
within the law, and had the right to issue
the bonds in question without the permits
sion of the stockholders, and, therefore,
Mr.. Smith had no case, and tho injunction
should not be granted.
R. g. Erwin, Esq. followed Mr.. Calhoun
In speech of similar character. At the
conclusion of his remarks Capt. II. G. Gun
bingham took up the cudgel for the rail
road, and made one of his usually eloquent
speeches, and Mr.. King closed for the
defense in a fifteen minutes argument.
Judge Montgomery then replied to the
four railroad attorneys, aud apparently
met all of their arguments with good effece.
de reiterated his line of argument at the
opening OF the case, and backed up his
statements by many authorities.
IN THE JUDGES HANDS.
1t was nearly 8 o'clock when the argu-
ments ended, and Judge Failigant took the
papers and announced that he would reserve
his decision. The case was one of the
most hotly contested ever before the
court. The attorneys on both sides
are among the most eloquent
at the Georgia bar, and the arguments were
probably the best ever heard in the court
house in similar case. Every legal point
which could be taken advantage of was
used. The outcome of the case is anxiously
awaited, not only by the Central, but by all
the railroads Of the state, as it involves
very important issue, and will probably set
a precedent. Persons who are well posted
say that no matter which way the case is
decided the supreme court will have to pass
upon it.
CITY BREVITIES.