The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-06-13
RAILROAD COMPANIES DISAGREE
Great salt Lake and Hot Springs vs.
RAND Transit.

The case of the Great Salt Lake &
Hot Springs Railway company against
J. S. Cameron and Salt Lake Rapid
Transit company came on before Judge
Richie with Hon. J. L. Rawhns APP
pearing for THE plaintiff, and Hon. P.
l. Williams for the defendants.
The plaineiii, claiming to be the
owner and in possession of a dummy
line of railroad on Third West street,
alleges that on October Is and II, 1892,
the defendants wrongfuily, with a
large force of men, entered upon the
said line of railroad and without right
erected a, line of poles thereon in such
close proximity to the plaintiffs track
as to obstruct the operation Of PLAIN
tiff's cars, and defendants so appro-
priated that portion OF plaintiff right
of way so occupied and encountered
with said poles, 20 the great and IT.
-reparable damage Of the plaldftlIl /:
Plaintiff asked for an injunction and
for Judgment for $500 for damages
already sustained.
The defendants filed an answer and
cross-complaint, in which all the ma
te,ial Allegations of the complaint
were denied, and it was alleged thaN
on February II. 1890. the defenoaln.'
the Rapid Transit company, was grant
ed a. franchise by the city councll 10
construct and operate a double track
street. railroad with the necessary
switches. etc, on Third West, and did
construct said street railroad, and tha1
the electric poles were in accordance
with the terms of the franchise, erect
ed in the center of the street. THESE
acts are the acts complained OF py
the plaintiff. :.
Nv way of cross complaint and t
gain affirmative relief the defendant
allege that after they received gram
Of a franchise and had constructs
their tracks the plaintiff began IN
construction of a railway ON the WEE
side of the center of the street am
cacupied a portion of the space upo1
which the defendants were granted I'M
right to construct their lines. the de
PENDANTS protested and the plaintiff de
sisted from constructing its line on TN
west side of the street and moved IT
material to the east side thereof. Il
which defendants had no objection. /
is then alleged that the plaintiff threat
ems to lay a double track from the in
tersection of Fifth North and ThirC
West streets and on to Ninth Nortf
street. and in such construction viii
occupy and take possession of the por
ton of the street upon which the de
PENDANTS have been granted the right K
construct their Single OF UOUiflS tTdch
Defendants PRAYED for a. perpetual in
junction against the plaintiff.
In a supplemental cross-complaint thu
defendants alleged that after the issu
ance of a temporary injunction th'
plaintiff wrongfully and in violation O
che franchise TO the defendants anC
without the knowledge of the defend
ants, secretly removed the poles of tn,
electric light company a distance o
two feet or more TO the west Of tn,
center Of the street and from the pc
sition in which they We're placed b!
these defendants for a distance of fiv'
blocks, from North Temple street OF
Third West street to Fifth North street
Defendants asked for an order OF tn,
court compelling the plaintiff to pu
the poles back in their original places
Temporary injunctions were issue,
pro and con at the time the litigation
was commenced and matters have re
manned in statu quo as far as POSSIBLE
ever since.
The hearing of the case was proceed
ing when court adjourned at SO
o'clock.