The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-08-31
A BUDGET FROM BEAUMONT
Another Injunction Against the Fort
Arthur Channel
AT INSTANCE OF ANOTHER COMPANY.
The Most Serious Obstacle which
the Proposed Ship Channel From
sabine Pass HAS Met.


company which rs endeavoring to make
Port Arthur deep water port by con-
structing ship channel nearly eight miies
long. is accommodating trouble. Several days
ago attorneys for a man named Latham,
who owns property through which the pro-
posed channel must necessarily run. went
before United States Circuit Judge A. 4.
Mccormick and obtained an ip)unctloH
which temporarily enjoins the Port Arthur
Channel and Dock company from con-
demning a right of way through his prop
erty, and today condemnation proceedings
by the same company are enjoined by
writ Issued by Judge s. p. West, judge OF
the First judicial district. The latter writ
is in answer to prayer from the Jefferson
County Channel and Dock company and is
regarded as the most serious obstacle that
has yet been placed In the way Of the
Port Arthur concern
The Jefferson County Channel and Dock
company VS.. the Port Arthur Channel and
Dock company is the title Of the suit In
which this last injunction is issued. In
its prayer for Injunction plaintiff alleges
that It is a corporation duly chartered by
the State OF Texas, the charter being filed
May 2, 1897. The petition sets out the pur-
poses of the company, to construct ship
channel from a point on Sabine Pass
northward to a stream known as Mud
bayou, and that In pursuance Of that pur-
pose the company filed condemnation pro-
ceedings with the county Judge Of Jeffer-
son county against all the owners Of the
property over and through which plaintiff
sought to construct a channel.
That thereafter ID. NJ Thomas ct al filed
suit In the Jefferson county district court
claiming to be owners OF the land sought
to be condemned and which plaintiff had
filed proceedings to condemn and caused
| an injunction to be issued out of said court
against the construction of said channel
and restraining plaintiff from further pro-
ceeding with said condemnation. In an
swer to the complaint of ID. NJ. Thomas ct
al plaintiff filed its first amended original
answer containing a cross action and suit
against Thomas ct al and prayed In it's
said answer that all parties owning and
claiming interest in any portion In said
land be made parties in the said suit of
ID. M. Thomas ct al, which said suit and
cross action is now pending III the Jeffer-
son county district court for further pro-
ceedngs.
The petition then describes the route of
the channel plaintiff proposes to cons ruct
and sets forth that in July of this year the
defendant, the Port Arthur Channel and
Dock company, filed its petition with The
county judge of Jefferson county
against Charles T. Crary and J. b. Wat
klns, WHO owns portion of the land over
anu through which plaintiff proposes to
construct it's channel. for the purpose of
condemning right of way for q channel,
which proposed channel of defendants in
terferes with ard appropriates a large por-
tion OF the same ground upon and over
which this plaintiff proposes to construct
Its channel as described and laid out both
In it's charter and cross action to condemn;
and that the defendant well knew at the
time 1t brought said suit against Crary
and Watkins to condemn. that plaintiff
had described and designated for Its chan
mel the route aforesaid.
That the channel of the defendant COM
pany herein, as proposed by It, and de-
scriped IN It's suit to condemn brought
against Crary and Watkins would interfere
with and entirely destroy the vested right
of plaintiff to construct a channel.
That at the time of the incorporation of
piaintitt company and the date OF filing
It's petition to condemn as we'll ms the
time OF Its said cross action 10 condemn
the defendant company had not DESIGNATED.
IN no way appropriated. nor intended the
construction OF its channel. so as to in
any way interfere with plaintiff, but plain
tiif Is Informed, believes and alleges that
the purpose of defendant in the construc-
tion oil its channel is to damage and de-
stroy plaintiffs franchise and right of
way, and which channel. If so constructed
by defendant, would destroy plaintiffs
vested rights and franchise and damage
plaintiff In the sum of 500 00O
fhat construction by defendant OF Its
channel along the route in controversy
would be an ultra wires act, as it's charter
calls for channel along and across Sa
bine lake.
That defendant is now engaged in the
construction OF its channel In the d;rec-
ton OF plaintiffs proposed channel and
threatens and unless restrained by the
gracious writ of injunction win proceed
Win the proceedings to condemn the lands
Tor the purpose of its channel and esah-
ilsn the burden OF easement upon said
land. and, when condemned. construct IFS
said channel. us>rly disregarding the
rights OF plaintiff and notwithstandinp
PLAINTIFFS said suit for the ESTABLISH,
0, an easemecC and right OF way for its
said conflict now pending in tbis co,rr
IN consideration whereof. plaintiff being
remediless in the premises by rules Of law
can only have relief in couvt Of equity
IN when matters OF this nature ara cav
nizsbie. and plaintiff prays that your honor
VIII grant writ Of injunction restraints
aefendant, the Port Arthur Channel and
Lock company, from entering upon any
portion Of said land covered by piaintiffs
n ~ al = - y
the prosecution u any suit to condemn soia
land or any portion thereof. and from do
ing any act in jeopardy OF plaint.ff,s ricbt
~ the premises; that defendant be reouired
Sy yaiaa process TO answer the charges
herein alleged. appear in defense ~ iris
complaint and that on trial hereof ~ ms ~
junction herein prayed for be perpetua,as
Judge West granted the injunct,o, !.
prayed conditioned that the plaintiffs maxi
a bond In the sum Of so make
WILSON INVITED TO TExas