The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-09-20

Judge Hiles was engaged yesterday
in hearing the injunction suit brought
by residents of East Brigham street
against the Salt Lake City Street Rail-
way company to prevent the latter
from extending its line any further
along that thoroughfare. So far as
the showing made yesterday, it was all
in favor of the company. Judges Dey
and Loofbourow conducted the case
Tor the Brigham street people, while
Senator Rawlins and e. b. Critchlo"
represented the company.
It will be remembered that residents
along the street named lodged SUIT
against the company about month
ago 10 enjoln it from building the
track extension. Judge Dey In oehalt
of the plaintiffs, made an opening
statement, saying that the original ar
ticles of the company were filed in 1872,
and in 1873 so amended as TO exclude
the street in controversy. In 1889 the
company's charter was again amended
so as to. include every street in the
city. That same year the council
granted a franchise for the construc-
ton of a line along Brigham street.
In 1893, he said, the residents protested
against the construction of this line
any further than TO z street. The
company agreed not to do this, and it
was on this agreement that the people
along the street now based their case.
Senator Rawlins made no statement
for the defense, and the balance of the
time during the morning session was
consumed in legal arguments on some
points of law involved.
TESTIMONY INTRODUCED.
In the afternoon matters were set
tied sufficiently so as to allow the in
PRODUCTION of testimony, but Judge
Dey encountered many obstacles. He
put witnesses on the stand to establish
the existence of such an agreement as
alluded to, but the defense objected,
contending that the franchise granted
the company was the best evidence of
its right to construct the line over the
disputed distance.
Louis Cohn, who was q member or
the city council in 1893 was first put
on the stand. He was one Of the COM
mittee on improvements at the time
the franchise was granted, and, there
fore, knew something about the trans
action, but ne wasn't allowed to say
much.
Judge Dey asked him whether or not
there was an agreement between the
council and the company relative to
an extension of the Brigham street
line.
after some legal Wrangling it was al
lowed and Mr.. Cohn replied affirma-
lively.
Then the ccmpany's attorneys OBJ
jected again to the further introduce
ton of testimony in this line, as it was
evident that any negotiations between
the council and committee was merged
into the franchise subsequently grant
ed, and whatever oral understanding
hero aviSfad was feriaI
Witness was finally allowed to go on,
and stated that the representatives of
the company frequently made declara-
lions that they did not intend to eX-
tend the line. for the reason that they
did not want TO parallel the First
South street line.
The answer was stricken out as i'm
and Mr.. Cohn was excused.
EX-CoUNCILMAN- HORNE.
Ex-CcUncilman Horne was next
called. Mr.. Horne was a member of
the city council in 1898, and was also
one of the committee on improvements.
The company at that time petitioned
for an extension of its line on Brigham
street. Several interviews were held
with the representatives of the COM
pany. There was an agreement in
writing, witness said, but it was never
presented to the council and never
acted upon. He could not. however,
say where the agreement was at the
present time.
Il have made a dfligent search" he
said, during the past two weeks for
il, but 1 have been unable to find it,
Witness Was asked if he knew the
terms of the agreement, but before he
could reply, counsel for the company
objected.
What was the agreement" broke in
Judge Hiles.
MIR. Loofbourow then stated that in
substance the understanding between /
the company and the council was that
N the event of the latter granting GER
tain extensions of its franchise, the /,
would not extend its line on /
Brigham street until a majority of the /
property owners were favorable to the I
Plaintiffs attorneys then sought to I
introduce further testimony along this /
inc, tending to show that the company |
was guilty of fraud in the transaction /
Fraud not being charged in the COM /
Dlaint, Judge Dey asked leave for time
% amend and was given until 10 |
o'clock this morning. when the battle |
sill be resumed.