The Forrest City times., 1895-05-10
ARKANSAS STATE NEWS.
Decided Against the Frisco.

Decided Against the Frisco.
 Can railroad company. in contest ing the reasonableness of a rate estab- lished by the legislature, or by a pub lc body charged with the duty of pre- scribing tariffs for the roads, set up the claim that the rate is unreasonable and unprofitable as to part of line, and therefore should not stand as to such part?
 The question came up in the suit of Gill vs. St Louis San Francisco Railway CO By an act of the legislature of Arkansas, approved April li. 1887, the maximum rate of passenger iares which the carriers in this state might charge was fixed at three cents per mile, and penalty of $500 was prescribed TOT each overcharge, payable to the pas- senger from whom such overcharge had been exacted. In 1887, at the fall term oi the Washington county circuit court, John D. Glil brought an action against the St. Louis and san Francisco Railway O.. alleging that saiu company, operating railroad within the state or Arkansas more than 70 mile in length. had on tive distinct occasions charged and re. celved from the plaintiff more than three cents per mile. and demanding judgment for the pen- aIties prescribed in the statute. Similar suits against the company were also brought by other parties. The suits resulted in favor of the complainants, and an appeal was taken to the supreme court Of Arkansas, where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. A writ or error was then sued out in the United states supreme court which has now also found for the plaintfn.
 The decision is that where the legislature es- taonshed passenger rate of so much per mile, and prescribes penalties for a charge in excess thereof, to be recovered of the carrier by the passenger excessively charged, the question of unreasonableness of the rate so nxed may be raised in an action for such pen- atty. But the reasonableness must be deter mined by the effect of the rate on the net earn ings of the company for it's entire line within the state, and not by its effect upon any sub- road.
 Affects Arkansas Property Titles
 A decision of the supreme court that will be far-reaching in its effect was handed down the other day.
 The case was that of Charles F. Martin ct al. vs. Zeo Ward (deceased), and it was decided in favor of the latter. While the amount is only about s5,e0o yet the title to over S2 O0OO0J worth Of property was involved in the decision
 The act of 1889 provides that in all sales of land by mortgage or trustee in a deed of trust the property shall be appraised by three house. holders, appointed by justice of the peace and that if the property did not bring two thirds or Its appraised value at the first offer ing 1t should not be sold again in year and that when sold there should be year in which tho debtor had right to redeem. Martin and Wife had given Ward a deed of trust on land to secure sum borrowed. The debt fell due, and, although the deed provided that the trustee might sell upon non payment of the debt yet when it fell due Ward brought suit in the chancery court to foreclose the deed Of trust or the mort gage. The chancellor decreed sale. without appraisement, and that the sale should forever bar all right to redeem. Martin appealed and the supreme court decided that the act of 1889 did not apply to sales made by decree of the chancery court, that the sale was not made by the mortgage or trustee, but by the court and that when so made and approved by the court It was final and absolute.
 large number of cases are pending in the federa. and state courts to abide by the de- cision in thls case. This decision puts an end to vast amount of litigation and quiets titles to many million dollars worth of property throughout the state.
 Sending Up Counterfeiters.
 Five counterfeiters were arraigned before Judge Williams in the United States court at Little Rock, and each entered plea of guilty, and were sen. fenced to two years in the penitentiary at Albany and to pay fine of $500 They Were Pros RoSamap