The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-09
CAR COMPANIES FIGHT
Judge Baker Strikes Out Part of
the City COmpany's Answer.
Issue According to the COGrt-Injunc-
tion Suit to Prevent the Collection
of Street Crossing Assessments.

Arguments on the motion of the Citizens
Street-railroad Company to strike out por-
tons of the answer If the City Railway
Company to the complaint filed by the
first-named corporation were heard by
Judge Baker, of the federal court, in cham
bers, yesterday. Ex-President Harrison,
w. II. II. Miller and Ferdinand Winter
represented the Citizens company, while
Addison c. Harris and Byron X. Elliott
appeared for the City company. 1t was
General Harrison's first active participation
In a case in court since his return from
Washington.
The Citizens company, after the filing
by the City company, last month, of an
answer to the bill, moved to strike out
number of parts of this answer on the
ground that they were either legal, con-
illusions or 'scandalous and impertinent
allegations of facts" not relevant to the
case. The answer was considered by para
graphs, yesterday, and, after listening to
brief arguments, Judge Baker sustained
the motion to strike out the following
parts:
"An allegation that the city of Indian
apolis could not confer monopoly upon
any one street railroad company, this be-
IAN allegation that there could be 10
assignment Of the rights of the Old com
pany to the present Citizens Street-rafl-
road Company
ALLEGATIONS of the motives of the Legis-
lature in passing the new charter govern
ing the city of indianapolis. and allegations
of promises made verbally to the CITY
Council at the, time of the passing of the
assignment ordinance of 1888 and the cleo
trio ordinance of 1882
ALLEGATIONS that the legal effect of the
saSe the rs sSr to tRe CITIZENS company 70
operate electric cars until JAM IL, 1884, this
also being a conclusion OF law yet to be
IAN allegation denying that the so-called
extension ordinance of 1880 gave any right
"a All that the motive of the Citi-
zens company in making large expendl-
lures during the summer was wrongful,
viz: to strengthen its position before the
court"
The court refused to strike out allega-
tons of the answer to the effect that the
extension ordinance of 1880 had never been
accepted These rulings will expedite the
case. Judge Baker said during the pro-
ceedngs of yesterday that the real issue
was as to what rights the compliments
have under the State laws and city Ordi-
70 s5rSet not G b ryse ei in tine
matter Of the building OF lines and the &C.
cupation of streets IL the company had the
necessary authority. conferred by ordinance
In the afternoon the argument of further
portions of the motion to strike out was
continued by Mr.. Winter and General Har-
rison At o'clock 1t was decided that the
court take these remaining portions Of the
motion under advisement and pass on the
same without further argument Judge
Baker remarked that he had supposed that
the main questions of law In the case
could be presented by demurrer to the bill
so that he could at an early day pass upon
the rights of the respective companies aris-
ing out Of the statutes and ordinances which
have been passed. The counsel for the de
PENDANT of course had discretion and right
to decide. however. whether it was proper
to demur and thus raise the law questions
quickly or to answer the bill, rendering the
taking of evidence necessary. 1t then
suggested that the City company exercise
it's right to degllr TO those parts of the.
bill claiming the perpetuity and also claims
ing the extension to 1901 and answer as to
the remainder Of the bill. This suggestion
was, however, not acted on