The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-03-10

Judgment was rendered in the import
ant suit of the Illinois Trust and Invest
ment company against the Arkansas
CITY and the Arkansas City Water Works
company in the federal court yesterday.
The trouble was over a trust deed given
by the Water Works company to the
Trust and Investment company IN No
yember OF 1881. In 1885, the couucilmen
of the city passed an ordinance franchls-
ing company to build and operate water
works In that town aud agreed TO pay TO
the company $50 per hydrant per year for
twenty-one years. for fifty hydrants placed
along the watermains OF the city, and
| afterwards ordered eighty additional n.y.
drants. 49,
While this was in progress the Illinois
Trust and Investment company agreed TO
take the $50. 900 worth of bonds issued by
the company of 81, 900 each, bearing per
| cent interest per annum, payable semi.
annually, and coming due Ocs. l, 1906. and
were given trust deed TO be held by the
company AS surety. subsequently Al
| these bonds were sold to numerous stock
| holders. but AS dividends failed TO come IN
| and the taxes assessments and levies fall
| ed to be paid. suit WAS brought by the
| trust company for the possession OF the
water-works and the continuance OF the
| contract made between tue latter COM
pany and the city.
| hOSSlnOCOQ SmIUu HUd OotAoo VI AOpSNss
| appeared Cor the plaintiff, and Hon. John
| A. Eaton of Winfield and Hon Joseph
! ADV of Newton for the defendants.
! AS nearly AS it can be condensed from
| twenty two typewriter pages. the com
plant alleged that the contract was not
being fulfilled, aud that The stockholders
were being swindled. 1t claimed that the
water. works company have been In de.
! fault and are at present bankrupt ana
asked to have a receiver appointed, which
has been acceded to now for
several years. Il further claim ed
that the city, through its mayor,
had carried on a correspondence with ..
B. Qnigley of St. Louis with the object Of
forming u conspiracy to swindie the trust
Just rights. That through this cor
! respondence the water works were SOLD 10
the city for $4,000, making deed, and
| stating that the title was clear, aud tnai
after this the city uDlawfnlly repealed
the ordinance in which the franchise Was
| granted.
The defense claimed that the waite,
/ works did not give satisfacsion: that
the new hydrants were practically
useless, and that the ordinance granting
the franchise was illegally granted and
hence void. 1t denied all allegations OF
conspiracy, whether to cheat or for any
other purpose, and charged the plaintiff
| with Collision Win OIHefou1 pdrtieS IL
order to swindle. The grounds on which
it was claimed that the granting OF the
franchise was void were first. because the
CITY could not lawfully create more debt
than 10 per cent of the assessed value OF the
property in the city. and secondly, IN city
of the size which Arkansas City wa!
at that time five of the eight councilmer
must vote for franchise before it could D.
given while in reality but four voted for i
and three against. there being bus seven
members of the conncil present.
The reading of dispositions aud the argu
ing of the case occupied the last two day
of the federal courG's session. and yester'
day Judge Williams gave his decision
Concerning the legality OF granting thu
franchise he decided that inasmuch as the
clerk had printed the ordinances in with
the rest of the city ordinances
that ordinance should be binding or
the city. In respect to the insuf1iclency
the works those hydrants which did no
do their duty. should not be paid for unit
it was proven that they did what 1t WA
claimed they would do That the trus
, company should be put in possession o
the works and that the city should pay t
them 500 per hydrant per year for tue o.
original hydrants for the uuexpired par
: of the 81 wears, agreed.