The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-22
FIRST VICTORY FOR CITY
JUDGE MEALS RULING PRACTICALLY
sUsTAINS THE NEW LAW.
Preliminary Skirmish in the Street
Car Cases at NobIesviIIe
Yesterday.

Judge Meals first ruling in the street-car
cases pending in the Hamilton Circuit
Court was decided in the city's favor at
Noblesville yesterday. The court held the
citys complaint to be good, on the main
contentious, and required the Citizens
Street-rairoad Company to answer the
complaint, in which it is asked that the
company and the City Railway Company
be enjoined from using the streets of the
city after 1901. The Citizens Company filed
an answer to the citys complaint and
cross-complaint. The latter is mainly di-
rected against the City Railway Company,
and City Attorney Kern will perhaps
neither demur nor reply to it. Argument on
the issues between the city and the City
Railway Company was not finished. All the
attorneys will go to Noblesvlle next
Wednesday. City Attorney Kern seems to
think that at that time decision favorable
to the city will be rendered in both cases
and that in a short time the case will be
in the Supreme Court
Some time ago Mr.. Kern filed an amend
ed complaint in this litigation, which was
begun some time ago by the late John M.
Butler. The complaint made both street.
car companies defendants and asked that
both be enjoined from operating in this city
after 1901, at which time, it was alleged,
the New law, enacted last winter, wipes
out all existing claims of either company
against the city There was an answer to
the complaint filed by the City Railway
Company. To this answer the city de-
INJURED. The Citizens Street-railroad Com
pany refused to file an answer, and de-
INJURED instead. Argument yesterday was
on the city's demurrer to the City Com
pany's answer and on the Citizens Com
pany's demurrer to the city's complaint.
In arguing its demurrer the Citizens
Company, by its attorneys. Messrs. Winter
and ELAN, attacked the validity of the New
law. The attorneys Insisted that the United
States Court has declared that the company
has valid rights until 1901 The constitu-
tionality Of the New law was attacked on
several grounds. AS the company's argu-
ment was largely with regard to the valid
ity of the New law. the decision of Judge
Neal in overruling the demurrer is regard
ed as sustaining the constitutionality of the
law.
Railway Company, did not go into the va
liQity OF the New law, but simply contend
ed that their client had valid contract
with the city under the franchise given it.
Mr.. Kern, representing the city's inter-
ests, insisted that the New law is valid
and that under it neither company has any
rights to occupy and use the streets, al
legs and public highways Of indianapolis
after 1901. He contended that the City Com
theory that the Council had no right to
make grant to it prior to the expiration
Street-railroad Company, which the Court
of the United States has decided does not
expire in any event before 1901. He ar
gued that the Council would have had just
as much right to tie the city's hands by en-
tering into contract TO begin twenty years
in the future as one beginning eight years
The arguments on both sides were quite
lengthy and many authorities were cited.
argument of the City Company's attorneys,
and, as there is some kind of convention
In Noblesville to-day, 1t was decided to let
the argument go over until next Tuesday.
CITIZENS CROSS-COMPLAINT.
Late in the evening, while the attorneys
were hurrying away to the train, the Cit
liens Company filed their answer and cross
complaint. Mr.. Kern was furnished with a
copy of the cross-complaint but has not
yet seen the answer. In the cross-complaint
the Citizens Company sets up it's rights
under the various laws and ordinances that
have been enacted, and refers to the deci-
sion of the United States Court holding
that its rights do not expire in any event
prior to 1901. 1t is alleged that the COM
pany now practically occupies all the
streets and alleys of Indianapolis, one track
on narrow streets and two tracks where il
is practicable. 1t says that while it has
not an exclusive occupancy of the streets
from legal standpoint, perhaps, that its
occupancy is exclusive, from a practical
standpoint, when the good and safety of the
citizens is considered Virtually admitting
the constitutionality of the New law in
providing that the occupying company's
property may be sold to some other com
pany if il fails to make a contract with
the city prior to that time, the company
continues by saying the purpose of that law
was to have the property sold to some new
by the pretentions of some other company,
and for this reason asks that the City Com
pany be denied the right to any occupancy
of the streets of indianapolis by reason Of
its pretended contract. Mr.. Kern said, after
hastily reading over the cross-complaint
with a Journal reporter, that he did not
think IL necessary to answer or demur to
it, as it appeared to deal solely with the
fight between the two companies. Whether
it would be necessary to reply TO the an
swer filed yesterday he could not say I'M
til he had seen the document. He was in
ciined to think that the city would simply
demur and that argument on this could be
taken up next Wednesday, so that the
whole litigation might be disposed of at that
time II a decision is reached on that day
by the court the case will soon reach the
Supreme Court of the State, as the only
thing then remaining to do will be to pre-
pare transcript.
From the proceedings yesterday it was
quite evident that the attorneys for the
Citizens Street-railroad Company expected
Judge Neal to uphold the New law as
they took with them the lengthy answer