Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-04-20
TEE CITY'S ANSWER
TO THE BILL FILED TUESDAY BY THE STREET
RAILWAY COMPANY.
The Allegations Of the Company Denied Generally,
and the Fo-Iy-Ihird Street. Track Said
10 Have Been Laid Without
Authority Of Law.


Forty-third street. yesterday.
The street cars continued to use the
replaced tracks during the day, as they
did Tuesday evening, and there does
not seem to be the remotest prospect OF
ANYTHING different until the Company
elects to make a change Of its own &C
cord. or the Court dissolves the injunc-
ton against the city, granted on Tues
day afternoon.
City Solicitor White continued work
upon the city's answer, which he had
commenced Tuesday evening, and
about three o'clock the paper was read
to Mayor Caldwell in the City Clerks
Office, signed by the Mayor and the seal
of the city affixed. At four o'clock the
paper was presented to Judge PAUL,
the various interested attorneys being
present, and the motion to dissolve the
Injunction will be argued to-day.
The essential points in the clty's an
swer are:
For causes Of such demurrer 1t is
averred:
81. That there is no equity in the
bill. -,
$50. That from the showing OF the bill,
the plaintiff has ample remedy at law
for the acts complained of.
"3. That the statements contained In
the bill show that the plaintiff is seek
ing TO Justify itself by means OF unau-
thorized acts or promises made by per-
sons without authority TO bind the city
of Wheeling.
so. That there are not proper parties
made TO the bill.
rs. That there are other errors APP
parent upon the face OF said bill"
The answer then proceeds to admit
the passage Of the ordinances OF August
@. 1887. and of December II, 1888, and
admits the correctness of the quotations
made from said ordinances by plaintiff,
but attention is called to Sec. 10 OF the
. ..inance of August 9, 1887, wherein 1t
is stated that nothing is granted to
said Railroad Company other than the
privileges herein plainly and expressly
set forth, aud they are entitled no right
or privilege hereunder by implication.
The respondent denies, though the
plaintiff seems to insist, that the tracks
torn up are nothing more than ordinary
switches, which it might put down I'M
der and by virtue Of quoted clause
of the ordinance above referred to, and
denies that either of said tracks In con-
troyersy are switches, in any ordinary
acceDtation of said word, and the claim
is made that they are nothing more or
less than main tracks, put down without
the slightest authority therefore by the
Railroad Company. The answer also
calls attention TO the fact that the plain
tiff, in its bill, nowhere shows or even
claims any authority, right or privilege
TO maintain and operate its road on ia
cob street. from Thirty-niDth to Forty
second street. The respondent also says
| il cannot be presumed to know what I'M
| provements the plaintiff is making OF
| its tracks and equipments, or It's reasons
! therefore, and it is advised 1t has moth
! ing to do with such improvements IN
less they are made in violation OF the
ordinances Of the city, its laws, or 9th
erwise affect the public interests which
the city should protect. But respondent
! insists that the laying or the tracks,
which are the subject OF this controVer-
sy. as we'll as their use by said Com
pany, was and is totally unauthorized,
and very much TO the detrinent OF the
interests of the public in said ia
cob street below Forty-third street, as
well as detrimental TO the enjoyment
and use of property on either side OF
eaid street. by the AUDITING owners
thereof.
Respondent further says that no act
of the Board Of Public Works, or any
of its individual members, can or should
be used or permitted to be used or even
an excuse for the plaintiff Company in
laving or using said tracks on Jacob
street, below Forty-third. as the Board
has no control of the streets other than is
especially given TO it by the Council,
and that the Board is bound to obey all
lawful instructions given itby the Coun'
ell. The respondent says it has moth
ing to do with the private management
of the plaintiff Company in its business,
in the running Of its cars, or the rea-
sons of the Company therefore, Insofar
rs the Company does not interfere with
the rights OF respondent or Of the pub
lie, but it denies that the plaintiff had
any right TO take up the turn
table on Forty-third street,
neither had the Company any
right to remove the switch from It's To-
cation on Jacob street, near Forty
fourth. The respondent says it Is not
true. as plaintiff AYERS, that ii removed
It's switch from near Forty-sixth street
and made a switch higher up, as stated
In the bill, "but the fact is that the
plaintiff did tear up said switch which
was near FOrty-sixth street, and there
fore. without the least authority there
fore, and OF its own motive and accord,
removed its main track OF line which
ran from Fofty-Jhird street south along
! Jacob street for some distance, TO the
east of its then location, and 10 within
about :. ~ feet of the curb OF the pave
ment on the east side Of the street, and
also extended the main line spoken oil
in the bill, which occupied part oil
Jacob street north of Forty-third
street, over and across Forty-third street
changing its location so as to run
the track thereof across Forty-thirc
street aud then down Jacob street
southwardly, west Of the middle OF said
last named street, and within 7.l2 fee
OF the curb of said jacob street, dis
lance of about $50 feet, and then con
nected, in said street, both OF saiC
tracks, at a point on said Jacob stree
near to FortY-sixth streets"
! 1t is set forth that Jacob street 4
very narrow, being only about twenty