The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-04-06
STILL HOLDS ITS CHARTER.
FIGHT AGAINST THE WHITE BLUFF
ROAD TO BE KEPT UP.

ROAD HI BE< NETT
The Turnpike Com missiOners' Effort
to Force n Forfeiture of the Conn
pany's Charter on Account of the
Alleged Bad Condition of the Road
Failed in the Superior COurt-T'he
Case to BE Carried to the Supreme
COurt-Mr. Testers Offer TO Sell the
Road to the County.
The Vernon Shell Road Company, better
known as the White Bluff Road Company,
will not forfeit its charter for the present
at least. After hearing argument on the
demurrer to the case brought against the
company by the turnpike commissioners
yesterday morning Judge Z. II. Galloway
sustained the demurrer, and the next step
in the proceeding will be TO submit the
matter to the supreme court
The turnpike commissioners, Messrs. r.
J. Davis, Joseph Hull and w. /. OBrien,
brought suit against the Vernon Shell
Road Company to force forfeiture of its
charter under section 7l9 BIB Of the code
of 1882, which requires the turnpike COM
missioners of the county. where such turn
pike roads are neglected and suffered to
get in a condition where they cannot be
travelled over comfortably or drayed over
successfully, to notify the keeper of the
toll gate and direct him to have it put in
good condition, and If this is not done i'm
mediately It is the duty of these commits
sioners to institute suit against the COM
pany controlling, or owning, the turnpike
to forfeit its charter.
The commissioners allege that they ex-
amined the road and found it in bad con-
dition whereupon they notified the keeper
of the toll gate Sept. 3, last. They fur
Their allege that it had not been put in
good condition at the time Of the filing
of the suit on Nov. Z.
The company, represented by Mr.. James
Il. Cam and Mr.. d. b. Lester, demurred
to the suit on the ground that the sec
ton of the code referred to was based on
an act of the legislature passed in 1879,
whereas the charter of the Vernon Shell
Road Company was granted by the legis-
lature in 1859. They held in their argu-
ment, therefore, that this section of the
code was unconstitutional as applied to
the company's charter which gave 1t GER
tain vested rights, and rights which the
courts are not empowered to take away.
The charter of the company has nothing
in 1t requiring it to maintain it's road in
good condition, the charter saying moth
ing about what sort of a road shall be kept
up. Under these circumstances, it was
further alleged that the plaintiffs had
failed to allege or show any violation of
the roads charter.
Messrs. W. II. Wade and ]. r. Saussy
made the arguments for the plaintiffs.
They held that while the law under
which the suit was brought was passed
after the charter was granted, the COM
pany was, nevertheless, liable to its pro-
visions on the ground that the legisla ture
hA rfaF 10, -sa1,l f-l, 5t,ah ,,l{,
ulations as it sees fit for the government
of this class and other classes of corpora
tons. Even though the charter did not
require it, the legislature they held, had
the right to pass laws for the benefit of
the public requiring that such properties
be kept in proper condition, and for these
reasons, they held that the law was not
unconstitutional.
Judge Galloway took the other view of
the case however, and sustained the de-
murrer, holding that the law was uncon-
stitutional and could not supercede the
vested rights of the company given it by
its charter.
the case had gone before a jury, it is
likely that the trial would have lasted
several days. A large number of wit
nesses had been summoned by the plain
tiff, including people who lived along the
White Bluff road and those living in the
city who use 1t regularly They were
prepared to put in a good deal of testi-
mony in support of their allegations had
the case come to trial.
Messrs. Saussy and Wade are not at all
satisfied with the ruling in the matter,
and they will carry the case to the su-
preme court at once, on the grounds pre-
scented that the legislature has the right
to enforce police regulations over such
properties as are for the public use and
benefit.
Mr.. Lester. who is practically owner of
the road, said last night that it is in bet
ter condition now than it has been in
twenty years. 1t is paying a good profit,
but he is ready TO dispose of it to the
county on any fair terms He recently
offered to sell outright or suggested that
the county take it by condemnation, or
he would dispose of it by arbitration and
appraisement. To neither of these offers,
Mr.. Lester says, has he received any re-
ply.