The Indianapolis journal., 1895-08-22
HEARING POSTPONED
sTREET-CAR CASE WILL BE HEARD
AT 2 O'CLOCK TODAY.
Messrs. Atkinson and Osterman. of the
Board of Works, md Mayor Dem
ny Enter General Denial.

Judge Brown was on the bench of the
Circuit Court yesterday afternoon to hear
the proceedings in the suit to enjoin the
city officials from proceeding further in
the movement 20 settle the litigation be-
tween the street railroads and the city
and to renew franchise Frank A Maus
and William Gordon, the petitioners. were
present. accompanied by Hoffman &
Leathers. attorneys, and also by ex-Mayor
Sullivan, who had been called into the
case Mayor Denny and CITY Attorney
scott represented the other side. Mr.. Scott
secured the attention OF the court. saying
that before further action was taken he
desired to read two afidavits entering a
general denial on the part of the Board
or Public Works and the Mayor. The pc
titioners' counsel thereupon asked for time
and privilege to read the affidavits, and
the court permitted a recess until they
could retire for conference with their cli-
ents On returning to the court room Mr.
Holtznlan asked time to file counter afi-
davits, intimating that the proceedings OF
the defendants had some elements of sur
prise. Mr.. Scott objected to granting an
extension of time, saying that the request
was not a proper one in an application
for a temporary; restraining order The
defense, he said, had presented simply a
denial of the averments made in the COM
plant, and had introduced no new mat
ter. The petitioners, he said, were not en-
titled to additional. time in order TO give
them further opportunity to make out a
prima facie case. Mr. Hoffman informed
the court that with additional time he
could file counter affidavits which would
support the complaint. He urged that no
harm could be done by little delay. His
side. he said, had nocreason TO know how
the defendants would meet the complaint
Mr.. Scott-That the counsel for the peti-
toners are surprised is no legal excuse
for failing to be prepared. There is no
ground for granting additional time, even
as matter of courtesy between the court
and the opposing counsel.
The Court-How much time would you
want. Mr.. Holtzman?rf.
Mr.. Holtzman--we would want time
enough to see two or three citizens. and
We can't tell just how long 1t would take
The Court-Can't you get your affidavits
ready yet this afternoon?
Mr.. Holtzman-We do not know just
where We could find the gentlemen. and it
might take longer than we think.
The Court-There is a great deal of force
in the statement of Mr. Scott that in the
absence of any new matter being brought
into the case by tae affidavits there is
no reason to grant further delay. But
rather than to have an incomplete hear
ing, and if you will be ready by o'clock
In the morning, VIII grant you that much
Mr.. Holtzman-Cant you make it .
o'clock in the afternoon? We may not be
able at once TO fina-ethe men we have in
mind fle
The Court--Let the time then be p. m.
Mr.. Scott-Will the court direct that this
ruling be made matter of record so that
The Court-Certainiy. The clerk will
make the entry howSaccordingly.
THE BOARDS AFFIDAVIT.
Thus ended the case for the day. the affi-
davits not being read to the court. Dur
ing the proceedings the, court granted the
petitioners the right to change the name
of Mr.. Atkinson in the complaint, it being
given there as Lynn b. Atkinson. whereas
the name of this Republican member of
the Board of Works is Edward Linnaeus
Atkinson The affidavit of the Board of
Works is as folows:p
Edward l.. Atkinson and John Oster-
man. being severally sworn, each for him
member of the Board Of Public Works of
the City of Indianapolis, as set forth in
the complaint, except that the said Atkin-
son says that he is sued under the name
of Lynn B. Atkinson, instead OF Edwin l..
Atkinson. which Is his correct name.
Said atlantis further say that it is true.
both by the records OF their Office and 9TH
erwise. that the .e.tye-of Indianapolis did
heretofore, to wit, On or about the 2ith
Board of Public WSykE.o enter into a con-
tract with the city Railway Company,
mentioned in the complaint, and which
by T. l.. Sullivan, then Mayor, and also
by ordinance duly passed by the Common
Council of said city, ratifying, confirming
after the sad city ns axay I es did
execute its certain bond in the penal sum
of 100000 to the Board of Public Works
all substantially as set forth in the COM
plant, including the copy of said contract
and ordinance ratifying the same exhibited
therewith.
"That'these affiants are unable to either
admit or deny that said contract is now in
force and erect. and are unable TO admit
or deny whether the same is or value, ad-
vantage and beneht to the resident citi-
petitioners II said City Railway Company
ance of its said contract with said city,
and had carried the same into effect and
had been able to build lines of street rail-
city. and had done so under the terms and
conditions of said contract, atlantis believe
said contract would have been OF great
value, benefit and advantage to the citi-
zens and taxpayers Of said city, and IL said
company could and would now or in the
near future enter upon the execution of
said contract and build its lines of street
railway and operate the same under the
terms and conditions of said contract, affi-
ants believe that said contract would still
be of great value, benefit and advantage
to the citizens and taxpayers of said city.
On account, however of the. litigation
which has arisen between said company
and the Citizens Street-railroad Company
as a result of said contract, and of the
litigation now pending between the. city
and the Citizens Street-railroad Company,
these atlantis are unable to state whether
said contract with The City Railway Conn
pany is or is not Of value. benefit and ad-
vantage to the citizens and taxpayers Of
said city.
"Affiants further state as to all the re-
naming material averments of the COM
plant in this cause. so far as they relate
81. ri 1f Duh