The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1896-05-08
THE UNITED STATES COURT.
An Important Especial Session at Brat
tlebOrO-rhe Rutland Railroad Lease
TO the Central CanceIled-Seycrai 9th
er Important Civil and Criminal Cases

There was special session of the
United States circuit and district
court at the Brooks House Tuesday
and Wednesday and one OF the most
! important sessions the court has had
for long time. bringing between 35
and 40 lawyers here and some of them
among the most eminent in this and
| adjoining states, besides two special
( train loads of railroad officials, and
resulting in an order in one case that
may result in the break up of the Cen
| tral Vermont railroad system.
Judge H. H. Wheeler presided and
the first case heard was that of D. T.
Staples and others, against the Mosley
4 Stoadard Manufacturing Company
of Rutland and Others for infringement
of milk tester. The prosecution was
represented by Howsou II Howson of
Philadelphia and the defendants by
+. Is. Stocking of Washington. The
decision was reserved Then came two
hearings growing out of the determi-
nation of the Central Vermont receiv
ers to throw up some of the leases, and
especially that of the Rutland road,
between Bellows Falls and Rutland,
recklessly undertaken and contributing
TO the ruin of the company by its great
"systea''to furnish mileage for the in
side car company. The Central receiy
ers, as they have right to under the
law of railroad receiverships. had de-
termined to throw up the Rutland
lease and they have not paid any of
the rent accrued since they took
charge March 90 Under the lease for
80 years, renewed in 1891, but existing
for over 20 years before, the Central
was to pay nearly $1,000 day and
as security the Fitchburg was to hold
back $40, 600 month from traffic bal
ances and all receipts on the Rutland
line itself had to be deposited IN the
Clement National bank so that the
Rutland road should get its pay before
the Central Vermont could get even
operating expenses. The receivers, re-
pudiating the agreement, had ordered
the money from both sources TO be
paid over to them, and the Rutland
road brought petition to compel the
Central to pay as agreed or else turn
over the road to the owners. Z. \.
Prouty of Newport argued the case for |
the petitioners and c. NJ. Wilds of |
ard B. f. Fairfield of
Montpelier for the receivers. The lat |
ter expressed Willingness to surren-
der the road, claiming that the lease
had resulted in steady loss TO the
Central. 81. 56i in 81. s92. 132 in 80,
sl3G sol in '93, $50, ?2i in '9i and SO.
80 in % C. =. Searle of Boston,
native of Thetford, representing the
\ lmerican Loan a Trust Co. and other
creditors opposed the surrender on the
ground that the whole system should
De kept intact to enable the receivers
to the pay interest on bonded indebt-
,dness. Mr. Prouty stated that in case
he road was turned over the Rutland
company would have claim for dam
ages which he afterward intimated
night be as much as sl.0Oo, 600 for vi
,lation of the contract. The arguments
md papers in the case showed the Cen
raj TO be in woful shape financially. 1t
WINS only 1913 miles of the road bed it
,perates and it was brought out that
he $1,000. 600 mortgage on ii did not
over anything more than the road bed