The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-05-07
4 RIGHT Oh WAY FIGHT.
The Salt Lake and Los Angeles
Case in Court.
WANT TO REACH A DEPOT.
Contest Between the Bathing Resort
Roads Brought to a Climax.
The Saltair Line Demands Right of
Way Across the Utah & Nevada
Tracks-The Rate Situation
No U. z. Cut.

The case of the Salt Lake & Los Angeles
Railway comp a " Us. Salt Lake city and the
Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Rail
way company was taken up in the Third
district court yesterday morning, having
been specially set for that time.
The plaintiff alleges that its surveyed
and adopted line runs across the defend
ant railway company's track on South
Temple street between Sixth and Seventh
West streets, at an angle OF Is degrees,
and also across part OF Sixth West
street, between South Temple and First
South, which the plaintiff desires to use;
that the crossing of said track and use OF
that part OF said street is necessary to
plaintiff as right of way for its railroad
and for the purpose of connecting with
the Rio Grande Western railway and
thereby reach It's depot in said city.
The plaintiff further alleges that 1t has
repeatedly petitioned the city council Ior
franchise authorizing it to cross ana use
said streets which are necessary Tor the
purnoses of making such connection and
operating said railroad as shown upon an
accompanying map, but the council mas
refused and neglected to grant sucn
franchise or permit the use OF SAID streets
and connections, although the plalntlH
has no depot facilities whatever, and can
not obtain any unless it secures right OF
way over said lands.
That the eastern end of plalntlns track
is now on the west side of Sixth West
street. near the middle of South Temple
street, where its present franchise ler1nl-
mates. and thus far it has been and is now
Obliged to use portion of South Temple
street for the loading and unloading OF us
cars and for depot purposes, when Is gIedU
Inconvenience to plaintiff and highly DEL
rimental to the public.
That the plaintiff has endeayoreo TO
make arrangements with the oregon
Short Line and Utah Northern railway lot
the crossing of its said railroad track az
the place indicated, but has been unaole
to make such arrangements. That the
plaintiff has located and is about TO con-
struct its said road over the line deslg-
mated. and that during the present year
its business will mainly consist OF carry
ing passengers to Saltair beach, and that
it will be unable to accommodate It's pat-
rons or carry on its business successfully
without proper depot facilities.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays tnat Inc
use of the lands and premises designated
be decreed as necessary to the plalntln' s
use and for the purposes stated; also that
q right of way and crossing over the llne
of the defendant railway company s
track. and that the court determine the
conditions upon which the plaintiff may
cross said track, and cross the streets
to q connection with the tracks OF the
Rio Grande Western railway, ana thaO
the plaintiff may be granted sucn use as q
right of way for its said railroad upon
such terms and conditions as may Dc JuSS
and equitable.
A CONDENSATION SUIT.
There was also similar action set for
hearing at the same time in which the
Salt Lake & Los Angeles railway was
nIaintIff and Robert Alvinure defendant.
This action was a condemnation pro-
ceeding asking that certain premises at
khe northeast corner of lot 6, block 5O,
plat G, be set aside to plaintiff use.
1t was agreed in court however, alter the
cases were called, that the plaintiff
railway company would pay Mr.. Alvinure
81. 900 Tor his property if they won their
suit against the city and the other railway
Richards. Moyle & Richards and Ben
nett, Marshall & Bradley appeared for the
plaintiff; Williams & VanCott for the
Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Rail
way company; and e. D. Hoge for the
city.
HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY.
The situation as it appears from the evil
dence is substantially as follows:
The plaintiffs line of road comes In be-
yond and at Eighth West street and runs
east on South Temple to the west side OF
Sixth West. From Eighth West to Sixth
West the said line of road runs on the
north side and parallel with the Utah q
Nevada company's track, and at SlXtn
West street the latter crosses the Denver
& Rio Grande, running north and south.
The plaintiff originally petitioned the
council for permission to cross the Utah &
Nevada's track between Sixth and Seventh
West and build curve to the Rio Grande
| track on Sixth West running through g
corner of block 80 property OF Robert
Alvinure) and into block 81 to the Rio
Grands Railway company's depot.
The council refused to grant
the franchise, on account OF the apparent
danger in leaving such a crossing at the
point named, which is near the intersec-
Grande Western, and with the prospect o.
each company's dong very heavy bust
ness during the bathing season. The
council was willing, however, to let the
plaintiff cross the Utah d Nevada track
at Eighth West and run east on South
Temple to Tenth West on the south side
of the Utah & Nevada's line and then
across the corner of block 80 and into the
Rio Grande Western depot. This the
company refused to do, owing to the large
outlay which would be necessitated by
moving their track for this distance, from
the north to the south side OF the Utah &
Nevada, and making the cuts and
fills which would be needed for 6
roadbed on the south side. The
council was also willing to let them con-
struct switch north from their terminu:
on the west side of Sixth West, north tc
the Rio Grande track, on Sixth West, in
order that they might back down to the
Rio Grande Western depot, from theil
connection. But this was not satisfactory
to the plaintiff, and they began the suit
as before stated, to compel the Utah
Nevada to allow them to cross their track
at the point named, and to compel the
city to grant them the use of the stree
from the same point TO connection with
the Rio Grande track.
The city's defense to the action is thai
the court has no jurisdiction in matter