The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-01-26
The TESTIMONY IS ALL IN.
Today the Attorneys Mill Prepar,
Their Arguments.
ARE TO PRESENT THEM TOMORROW
Evidence, Expert and Otherwise, In
trOduced TO show the Character
of wharf Company Rond.

Austin, Texas, January 25.--Before the
case OF w. l.. Moody e. Co. against the
Galveston Wharf company, Mr.. Ballinger,
attorney for defendants, stated with ref
erence to the certified copies Of certain
petitions introduced by plaintiff Saturday
that while he had been unable to find
court decisions exactly covering the case
in point. such as he had found, were in
favor of the admissibilty OF said petitions
in evidence.
MIR. Morissey, superintendent OF opera
ton OF the Wharf company railroad. hav-
ing been sworn was placed on the stand by
the defendants. He testified that he was
paid by the railroads and that said rail
roads operated the wharf track jointly,
furnishing crews and rolling stock. In
his opinion the warehouses on the wharf
are not terminal facilities. The railroads
have no control Of them. They are there
| for the convenience of the Ships aud ship
brokers. Asked to tell what the agreement
was between the railroads and the Wharf
company as TO the operation of the lat
ter's track, he proceeded to do SO. but
plaintiffs objected. contending that the
agreement itself in writing was the best
evidence, demanded the same, and the
| QUESTION WAS WltHufdWtl AFTER MT. BdlllIl2
or had stated that he was unable to pro-
| duce the agreement. Cross examined Mr.
| Morrisey did not consider that the owner
ship of terminal facilities changed their
| character. Knew in general way that the
| Wharf company charges a car trackage
! for every car that goes over its tracks ex-
cept on cars of grain which go TO the
| elevators, the elevator charge including the
| trackage. Understood that no trackage was
/ ~ tod hy thf rni do bntlp tt,,.
freight although the railroads paid track
age to the Wharf company on every class
of freight except grain, in spective Of who
might be the consignee,
G.. A. Sias, civil engineer, was sworn
and placed on the stand as an expert by
defendants. Told of much experience IN
| the construction of railroads. Governor
! llogg did not consider him an expert. but
was willing TO have him testify. In an
swer to Mr. Ballinger he said the Wharf
| company road WAS belt line. In answer
| to Governor Hogg he said he could define
belt line best by comparing 1t 10 belt
around n wheel on a shaft which transfers
power from one wheel to another: a belt
! line being line which transfers cars from
one line 10 another Jr from railroad to
the waters edge. Could not say that he
knew of any railroad entering Galveston
which used the Wharf company's tracks to
reach the trace of any other railroad. Did
not know anything about how the traffic
was handled over the wharf railroad, but
did not consider that it furnishes any
terminal facilities at all for the different
railroads terminating in Galveston Called
all the wharf tracks house tracks. Called
! the Wharf company railroad a belt line be
cause the railroads using 1t were in a posi-
tion to interchange traffic over II. although
he could not say that they did so. Did not
consider himself competent TO speak from
the standpoint of traffic man on the sub
ject of belt line service. Re-eXsmined by
Mr.. Baliinger Mr.. Sas said that to reach
the ietty railroad carload of rock would
have to travel over the Wharf company
tracks and that when the Gulf and Inter-
state enters Galveston it will have to do
: so over them. Adjourned until p. m.
! At the afternoon session j. b. Denison
manager of the Galveston freight bureau
was put on the stand by defendants. OBJ
Jected to by plaintin on the ground that ht
was not an expert, either as an engineer OF
Il traffic man. Accepted by commission a.
competent to testify as to the uses to which
railroads are put. Gave it as mis- opinion
that the Galveston Wharf railroad per
forms belt line service, Did not know
that there Was an interchange of traffic
ever the Wharf companys tracks between
the common carriers entering Galveston
eliminating the jctty road and the Gal
Weston and Western, to reach which sai'
tracts are used as to the first and might b.
used as to the other. Did not consider tn
wi rehouses on the wharf terminal facil
tiles. Looked upon II belt line as beihi
Part of the terminal facilities OF city
He understood that the responsibility of
railroad hauling freight for delivery Il
warehouses on the wharf terminates at tn
end of the Wharf company's track.
John Il. Bailey. secretary OF the Calves
ton Wharf company, testified that a uni
form charge of 81 per car is collected 10
every loaded car passing over the Wlar
companys tracks, except in the case q
grain. upon which the trackage is in
Guided in the elevator charge of cent pc
, bushel. The roads using the Wharf com
pany's railroad have no rights or the whaT
beyond the right Of delivery, he said an
that without any rights of storage on III
wharf. The union passenger depot. whic
IL on Wharf company property, Is leased l
the roads using it for a stipulated sum pr
month. Cross examined by Governo
Hogg. Mr. Bailey said that the account
of the Wharf company, the Wharf Com
pany railroad and the union depot and tn
, leased sheds on the wharf were Kept soy
aIate In turning in its tracks tn tho Ia
) assessor, the Wharf company denominate
them as a railroad, he averred Asked b
Mr., Lovejoy how many cars had passe
over the Wharf compapy's track last yea
Ballinger, who objected 10 the question o
the ground that it was not pertinent to ID
question of Jurisdiction.
Mr. Loyejoy contended that the questio
was legitimate. as II was propounhed "
the purpose Of showing that Mr. baile
: was mistaken in testifying that 81 ca
3 trackage was collected In every instance
: and that he wished to show that sue
trackage was not collected in the case
the Mallory line and others.
Judge Reagan ruled that II was reieNai
to show that Mr.. Bailey was mistaken. ~
that il must be done in legal way Won
tinuinC. MIR. Lovejoy asked Mr.. Bailey
the Wharf company did not have whar,
age contract with the Mallory line
which the question OF traekage is dispose
+, of. MIR. Ballnger again objected, an
; Judge Reagan ruled that a wharfage cor
tract was not relevant 10 the present u
quiry, Mr. Lovejoy retorted that ssi
contract covered the subject oil trackaf
and that Mr.. Bailey had been subpoena
| IN nroduce II I'VE asked that he brir