The San Francisco call., 1896-01-23
TO FORFEIT FRANCHISES,
The Market.Street Company Must
Answer for Its Negli.
gence.
SOME UNUSED RIGHTS OF WAY.
People of the Outlying Districts Tired
of Waiting for the Giant Cor.
poratlon.
SOME UNUSED RIGHTS OF WAY.

AS was predicted III 1HE CALL at various
times, the Market-street Railway Com
pany has at last been brought to bay for
its neglect of franchises in the OUTLYING
and comparatively appropriated districts
of the City. The franchise in question in
cludes nearly every street of any eonse-
quence in the districts south of the park /;
but ever since the granting of these fran
chises they have been nothing more than
mere privileges of the railroads. There
are no tracks laid on many of the streets;
on others there is but single track when
the franchise calls for double one, and
on others, where the cars are supposed to
run at intervals of fifteen minutes, some
times over an hour elapses from the pass
ing OF one to the coming of another. The
suit is brought by the Attorney General
upon the relation of d. L. Westover, and
its object is to have forfeited the franchise
granted by the Supervisors on December 8,
1890.
The franchise in question was described
as follows:
commencing at the intersection of Mason
and Market streets, northerly on Mason stree t
to Eddy, on Eddy TO Hyde, on Hyde to OFar-
ren, on OFarre1 to Scott, on Scott to Fell, on
Fell TO Baker, on Baker TO Page, on Page over
the right of way of the City Railway Company
to CLAYTON on CLAYTON TO Waller, on Waller to
Cole, on Cole to point on the line OF Sullivan
street, thence through private ground to Sui
livan street, on Sullivan to j, on to Third
avenue, thence along the slope OF the hills to
the intersection of street and Forty-frst ave-
nue., on Forty-frst avenue to q street and on U
street to the Pacific ocean.
A second franchise was also given which
allowed these rights of way:
From the intersection of Carl and Cole
streets, on Carl to First avenue, on First ave-
nue. to l street on street to Seventh avenue
Seventh aVeDnp to IL street. X
Eighteenth avenue Oh Eighteenth avenue to
7 street
A third franchise also granted gave
more rights OF way. as follows:
From Forty-seventh avenue and q street, on
Forty-seventh avenue to street, on street to
Forty-eighth avenue on Forty-eighth avenue to
] street, on street to Forty-ninth avenue, on
F orty-ninth avenue to H street.
It is complained that the order granting
these franchises was made subject to GER
tain restrictions, which were then or
might afterward be imposed, and it was
agreed that the company should expend
$4,000 on the construction of the road
within one year from the passage of the
order, and that the work should be dill
gently prosecuted until completion. Fail
ing to comply with these conditions the
company was to forfeit its right to the
franchise granted.
1t was further agreed that the cars
sHou4o pe run udIly aL HOI more tnan
ffteen-minute intervals, and that the
whole road should be completed and in
running order within the statutory time.
These conditions were all accepted.
On February q, 1891, the Metropolitan
Railway Company was incorporated, and
on April 81, 1891, the San Francisco Syndi-
cate and Trust Company conveyed to it
the franchises referred to. On July II,
1894, the Metropolitan Railway Company
mortgaged its property for $1,000,000 to
secure bond issue, the mortgage being
made by the California Title Insurance
and Trust Company. This corporation is
therefore made codefendant in the suit
for forfeiture.
1t is alleged that the terms under which
the franchises were granted were never
complied with and many of the privileges
have been abandoned. Parts of the fran
chlseS have been taken advantage of, but
In the outlying portions there has been no
attempt made to lay tracks, and since June
l, 1895, no double-track railway track has
been operated in the territory between
Hyde and DeYisadero over the streets man
toned in the franchise. There are only
single tracks laid and operated. There has
been no railway operated on Scott street
from O'Farrell to Fell street, nor ON Fell
from Scottto Baker, nor on Baker from Fell
to Page since June l, 1895, and since August
l, 1895, the Page, Waller, Carl, First ave-
nue. and | street branches have not been
operated. And further, the cars run
along those streets mentioned in the first
paragraph of the franchise only every
hour and fifteen minutes, and not every
fifteen minutes, as agreed upon.
ID. l.. Westover IS a resident of the dis
trict through which the outlying branches
OF the franchise run. He claims that the
franchise is held only to exclude others
desiring 10 operate roads, and by reason of
its failure to comply with the provisions
OF the agreement under which the fran
chise was granted the company should
forfeit it's rights. 1t is, therefore, prayed
that the franchise over all the streets de-
scribed in the original order be forfeited
and the defendants be made to pay $4,000
damages.