The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-04-29
TAKEN TO COURT.
The West Shore Line Asks
for an Injunction.
DENIAL OF THE VETO RIGHT.
The Street Superintendent Does Not
Know Whether Mr.. CresweII
Will Defend the Case.

The Dunand-FOwler road, known as the
West Shore street railroad line, did yester-
day what was expected would be done after
the breaking of the ground for the track
near HaIbor View.
When Chief Deputy Welch stopped the
wUTkmen from proceeding on Thursday
afternoon, on the ground that the company
has no franchise. it was stated by Louis F.
Duuand that the preliminary work had
been done simply to bring the matter in the
courts, as it was known that the Street Su-
periutendent would interfere
Yesterday his word was made good BY the
fling IN the Superior Court of an iniunc.
lion suit against Superintendent of Streets
AckerSOn, asking for perpetual Injunction
restraining the Street Superintendent fro m
interfering with the work of building the
road along the line for which the company
claims 10 have franchise.
The complaint simply set forth the fact
Of the granting of The franchise, but did not
set forth tile arguments which would be
used IN the maintenance of the compaDV's
claim. Alter stating that the franchise had
been granted by majority of the members
Of the board the fact OF the commencement
Of the line within the specified time was set
forth, and the interference of the Street Su-
peHntendent was mentioned. The inter
ference was claimed TO be unlawful, as be-
y
legal grant to prosecute the work.
The complaint makes one mistake in saw
ing that tile franchise was passed by a vote
of ten Supervisors. The records show that
Supervisors Antiques, Ebert and Heyer
voted against 1t, which would give only
vote of nine.
The complaint also states that w. Fowler
had assigned all his interest in the franchise
10 Rudolph Herman. Fowler was originally
the leading man of the company
n IL
afternoon on the Street Superintendent, the
paper was taken to the City and County
Attorney. That official was not in, and it
is not known what he will 10 in the matter
The SUIT Is brought personally against
Street Superintendent AcRerSon, and as
City ana County Attorney Creswell an
nOunced some time ago that he would not
take charge of any suits brought against
municipal officers as individuals. it is not
known whether lie will act for the Street
Superintendent or not.
The claim made by the West Shore COM
pany, that the Mayor had no power to veto
their franchise, is not new. The same COM
pany made the same claim before, although
the paper setting ii forth was fled among
the archives and forgotten.
The company on February 2 last sent a
communication to the board, stating that
they accepted the franchise as passed on
December 10, 1892. ana vetoed by Mayor
SaudeTson on December so of the same wear.
On February the new board took up
Mayor Sauderson's veto and sustained il.
On the same day the West Shore Company
sent in another communication, in which it
was said:
Tie undersigned having accepted the right
granted by tie board 10 use certain streets aud
waters for railroad tracks, we are advised That
The power 10 grant the same resides In your hon
ofsbie body, and We deny tie right Of Ills Honor
the Mayor 10 interfere.
After investigating the question it was
found that the new company proposes 10
base its case on section 497 OF the Civil
Code. which reads as follows:
Authority 10 lay railroad tracks through the
streets and public highways 0! any Incorporated
city or town may be obtained for a Term OF years.
not exceeding fifty, from The trustees, council
or other BODY TO whom is inIusted the govern.
ment Of lie city or town, under such restrictions
or limitations and upon such Terms and pay
HES may provide.
In this statute the name of the Mayor is
not mentioned, so il will be claimed that
the Mayor Is no part Of the trustees. coun-
ell or other governing body" of tie CITY,
the same claim winch is being make by the
water supervisors because the name is not
mentioned In the section of the cOnstitu-
ton dealing with the water question.
When questioned about the matter Mayor
Ebert stated that ia the end it would be
found that the city's chief executive pos
sesSed little veto Lower after all.