The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-09-21

tics. Ia fact, SO far, it seems that If
any rights have been infringed upon
they are those of the street car com
pany in being stopped from extending
the line.
While the evidence adduced tends to
show that there was an understanding
among certain members Of the city
council that the line would not be built.
the latter did not eliminate from the
franchise the disputed street when the
franchise covering all the streets was
subsequently granted.
The case Will probably be concluded
today.
When the hearing was resumed yes
terday morning eX-Councilman Horn,
who WAS chairman of the city councils
CpTlnnittee on improvements in 1898,
when the e0mpany's new franchise was
under consideration, was recalled. He
said that the representatives of the
street car company declared themselves
too poor to extend the line east of Z
street on Brigham and it was on the
assurance that the extension would not
be made that he consented to favor
able report to the council on the fran
chise he secured an agreement in
writing from Superintendent Read. the
purport Of which was that the com
pany had given up the street and did
not intend. to build line further than
10 e, unless agreeable to a majority of
the abutting property owners. This
agreement was delivered to him before
the council took action on the fran
chise. Witness said further that he
exhibited the agreement to a large
number of residents on Brigham and
aequaiuted other Interested parties
with what had been done.
EX-COUNCILMAN RICH.
Z. E. Rich testified to being present
at a meeting between the company Off
Gals and the committee on improve
ments and he Well remembered Horn
insisting that Brigham street should be
eliminated from the franchise, to which
the officers OF the company replied that
they had abandoned the idea of build
ing any further on the street in dis
pute.
J. L. Lawson, H. F. Evans and Louis
Cohn corroborated the testimony of the
previous witnesses as to the company's
declaration that the idea of extending
the line had been abandoned.
City Recorder Backman was put on
the stand when court reconvened in the
afternoon and he read from the records
the full text of the franchises and
communications relating thereto, all of
which was put in evidence.
PRESIDENT MCUNE.
The plaintiffs then put A. w. McCune
on the stand for the evident purpose
ofssestablishing the authority of the
cOmpany'S representative who negO-
tiated with the council but he was not
clear as to dates and Joseph Wells
secretary, was called. He said the di-
rectors in 1893 and 1894 We're A. w. Nc
Cune, r. c. Chambers, Francis Arm
strong, w. p. Read and Spencer Claw
son.
.. L. Arnold, superintendent of the
Iompany'S lines up to 1889, said the
,hrst line on Brigham from Main TO e
was built in 1874 and the line on First
South in 1873.
John bern. one of the plaintiffs in
the case, was next called.
Did you have a conversation with
McCune relative to the extension of the |
car line on Brigham street," was the
first query Judge Dey put to him.
Yes, sir; l had q talk with him a
few days ago." was the reply.
Objections were raised by Mr.. Raw |
Inns "a this point on the grounds of i'm
materiality.
WHY THEY WANT TO EXTEND. |
Judge Dey insisted that he wanted to
show that the proposed extension was
not made with any purpose of benefit /
ing the public, but rather to serve per- |
sonal interests.
Judge Hiles was inclined to sustain /
the objection. but finally asked Judge |
McCune and Dern was.
Why, your honor" replied Dey, "a |
few days ago Mr. McCune informed |
Mr.. Dern that the only reason why the |
company wanted to extend the line was |
to get even with the Rapid Transit |
company for building to Fort Doug |
las"
This caused a ripple of laughter /
among all present, and none seemed TO /
enjoy the situation more than Mr. Nc /
Cune himself.
The court ruled against such testi- !
mQny as having no bearing on the issue, |
and Judge Dey charged his tack.
MR.. DERN RECEIVED ASSUR-
ANCES.
Mr. Dern went on to state that two |
years ago, when he bought his present /
home on Brigham street. he first made
an investigation, and it was the assur-
ance from the party he bought from to |
the effect that there would be no car
line mat induced him to pay a bigger
price for the property than he other
wise would have done. He said If the
line was extended it would, in his opin-
ion, depreciate the value of abutting
objection TO this kind of testimony
was AGAIN raised by the company
counsel and sustained by the court
w. E Smedley another Brigham
street resident, was the last witness
called. He learned from Councilman
Horn, he said, that the city had a
guarantee from the company that the
line would not be extended.
I'VE rest said Judge Dey.
MOTION TO STRIKE OUT.
Senator Rawlins then moved to strike
out all testimony in the case except the
franchise and communications relating
thereto as appearing on the records. In
support of the motion, he cOntended !
that it was all immaterial; that the
best evidence was the franchise which
gave the company a right TO build on
all the streets. No attempt had been
made TO show that the company was
guilty of fraud, and that if such had
been the contention, the city and not
the property-owners was the party to
deal with the company. SO far as the
statement of different members of the
council was concerned, TO the effe { that |
the company declared its intent I to
a abandon building the extension. h con-
tended it had no bearing ON the case,
as all negotiations merged into the
subsequently granted. and
giving the company full right to all the
streets. Brigham street was not ex-
Guided. Furthermore, statements made
by individual members of the company
could no more bind the company than
by individual members of
the council could bind that body. The
having been granted a right
10 the street, could not voluntarily
abandon it without consent from the