Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-05-07
SUIT AGAINST THE TRACTION.
Case of Mr.. Hyer Called In the
United states Circuit Court.

The United States Circuit Court OF APP
peals-Judge Goff preslding-yesterday al
ternoon heard argument in the case OF
Hyer VS.. the Richmond Traction Com
pany. This was action to receive from
the defendant company an interest in It's
franchise. The case was argued by Judge
\. l.. Holiday and Major Robert stiles,
for the plaintiff, and by James Lyons, W.
W. Henry, and Mr.. George w. Mhitlock,
of Baltimore. for the defendant.
At $50 the court adjourned, the case
not having been concluded. The argu-
ment will be continued to-day.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
This action was brought last October,
and its object was TO have the court 10
issue an injunction restraining the Rich
mond Traction Company from trans
ferring or encumbering the franchise or
property OF the said corporation" The
bill first explains how. AFTER repeated
visits to Richmond in the interest of Sc
curing a franchise to build and operate
a street railway on Broad street. he even
tualy succeeded. Later on the orator
discovered that its terms as originally
prepared and submitted by him. and re-
commended by the Committee on Streets,
had been altered, without the approval
Of the petitioner who declined to- pro-
coed under II in the form in which 70
was finally enacted and approved. The
bill goes on TO state that the petitioner
deposited in n city bank. I'm accordance
with a provision laid down in the paper
prepared by the City Attorney, and went
North, believing, upon the assurance Of
the city officials and councilmen that
the City Council would pass amendments
i. To- 81. s.saffrf
nal form.
The bill then narrates the circumstances
under which Mr. Hyer claims TO have
first become aware Of a competing appli-
cation, and how on the 9Th day Of August
he was approached by Mr.. =. b. Shield
in New York as a representative of the
/ Traction Company, and was induced TO
! enter into a contract with Mr. SHIELD as
| a representative Of the Traction Company
merging their respective interests and
| binding themselves and their associates
in the two enterprises mutually TO CO.
| operate in securing a franchise for the
Broad-street railway, and 10 divide
| equally between themselves and their as
sociates whatever might be realized from
| the success of the enterprise.
The contract. the plaintiff contends, has
been broken by the defendant company
i anu lnty pray lndL luty De utcldTeQ ell
titled to a one-half interest in the said
company's franchise. enterprise, property,
and stock.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Upon motion Of Mr. Wyndham r. Mere
dith. NJ NJ. Martin, Of Richmond; Green
| lee d. Letcher, Of Lexington. and +. w.
Wilson of Charleston w. Va, were ad-
mtted as attorneys Of this court
The case Of the First National Bank
Of Richmond, plaintiff in error, against
the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad
Company defendant in error, was argued
by Thomas w. Strange. Of Wilmington
| y. c.. for plaintiff in error. and by Junius
Davis and George Rountree, of Whining
ton, y. c., for defendant in error. and
submitted
This was an action brought In the Cir
cult Court for the Eastern District OF
North Carolina for the purpose OF Sc
curing the possession Of several vouchers
or sght-drafts from the defendant, or
their value in money. aggregating the
sum Of Si.76626 with interest; upon the
ground that the said commercial papers
were the property Of the plaintiff. having
been delivered to defendant by plaintins
agent, with consideration.
The case OF Smith, petitioner, appel
liant. against the Glasgow Investment
Company appellee appealed from the
Circuit Court, Western District Of Viz
ginia, Will be called this morning.