Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1898-02-11
TOWN OF WOODSTOCK vs.. SOUTHERN
RAll WAY

Last week there was published in the
HERALD a communication from the
Town Council OF Woodstock, to which
a reply was vouchsafed by the HERALD
calling in question the following state
merit, and challenging the production of
the letter sent to the Southern Railway.
Here is the statement referred to:
Consequently said company was
notified that nominal rent was demand
cd, such as 81 90 per year in recOgni-
ton OF the right OF the town OF Wood
stock. The only object being to pro-
tect the interests OF the town in said
property aud at the same time to retain
the title to said depot. There has never
been any desire to force the Southern
out, or require the payment OF an Excess
sive amount OF rent, and in fact the rent
demanded was the merest nominal sum-,
This statement OF the HERALD calls
in question the correctness OF the card
published because we suppose it said
consequently said company was noti-
fled that nominal rent was demanded
&C." The HERALD saw the letter which
| as Counsel OF the town sent the South
ern Railway, which is as follows:
WOODSTOCK, IL, 23d, 1897.
The Southern Railway,
Wash ID. c.,
Gentlemsn:-At the instance OF the
town Council Woodstock, Va, / write
to demand ofyour Company the pay
ment OF an annual rental for the depot
used by you in said Town. The prop
erty in question under the express terms
and provisions OF the Deed to the b. &
u. X. 4. Co., now belongs to the
Corporation OF Woodstock, and as such
is entitled to the control thereof.
shall appreciate an early reply from
you before instituting any legal pro-
ceedings looking to the collection of a
reasonable rental for your present use
and occupation Of said passenger depot.
| am, yours, very truly,
NJ. L. WALTON,
Atty. for Corporation OF
Woodstock, Va,
This letter says reasonable rental
which the town Council had determined
should be merely nominal.
No answer was received to this letter
from the Company, but shortly after il
was written, |, in person notified Hon
II. II. Downing, the Counsel of the
Southern Railway, in Woodstock, thai
what was meant by reasonable rental
was the payment OF orly nominal rem
tai of dollar or nity cents. for that
matter, per year, just so as to secure 4
recognition of the towns title to the
property i'm question. The HERALD
falling to observe that the card did not
say the Southern was notified bV letter,
aud having seen the 'stter copy OF
which is pub lishsd above, supposed that
WAS the only means Of notice to the
Company, and cOnseo emily calls in
question the CORRECTNESS. of the Councils
statement.
had the copy of the letter to the
Southern Railway, which OF course
was retained. and knew its contents full
ly and well. The notice that was re-
ferred to by the Council was the verbal
notification to Mr.. Downing, Counsel OF
the Company, IN person at We Odstock;
and not the letter to the Southern Rail-
way which speaks Ofa reasonable rem
tai" The HERALD knew of the letter,
but did not know OF the personal notifi-
cation, the town Council referred to the
latter and the HERALD 20 the for mer.
The Council has no. receded from the
line Of action indicated in the letter to
the Company, but at the request OF the
Counsel Of the Railway Company, action
was deferred rs WAS expressly stated in
the card until the Southern Railway may
make some arrangements with the b &
o. X. K. Company.
Respectfully,
VI. l.. WALTON,
Counsel for the Town OF
WOOl,t0ck, Va.