Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1898-03-15
TIE -pERor CAR CASE.
Rece1ves +. R Arson Piles an Answer
Motion to DISMISS PetIton Argued

4 a
Motion TO DISMISS Petition Argued
At 2 O'Clock this aftern JOo the case
| known as the Depot car case" was
called before Judge II. II. Hewitt.
I Having filed an extended answer du-
I ring the forenoon, Attorney Geo. g.
Bingham, counsel for Receiver r. 4.
Anson, made a mOtiOn for Judgment
on pleadings, dismissing the petition.
I The motion was argled at length BY
/ Mr.. Bingham and by W. II. Holmes,
attorney tOr the petitioners.
This morning GeU. G. Bingham, at
/ tOrney for Receiver +. r. ADsOn OF
/ the Salem * Suburban Street Rail-
way Company. fled az answer TO the
petition recently tiled by j. CJnnOr et
/ al, for an order from the court, order
| ing Mr.. AnsOn as receiver Of the Street
Railway Co, to run nis car, known as
the depot car, TO and from the VIII
lametJe Hotel. TIE answer is a
le9gthy document and consists Of
twelve pages Of type6riting. y syn
Opsis Of the answer Is given.
The defendant cEpOratiOn admits
the management and operation Of
system Of street cars in this city
and asserts thai the depot
car has been operated for a cOnsidera-
tiOn from the depot TO various parts
Of the city for the accommodation Of
incoming and outgoing passengers.
The defendant denies that the tracks
are 50 constructed CT that the cars
have been so operated as TO accOmO-
date travellers or passengers from the
5. P. Co.'S. depot along the property
Of any Of said petitioners and especi-
ally that 81 j. COnLOr. The answer
denies that prior to 1rOprietOrship Of
Hotel Willamette BY petitioner J.
COunOr at no time, did the owners Of
the building or grounds upon which
hOtel stands pay TO corporation con-
sideratlOn for the extension Of
its track to a point opposite
the hotel or 50 arrange tue
operation of its cars 50 as to accom-.
modate persons desiring 10 90 to and
from the hotel. Defendants also deny
that there was a profit Of from sI.j0 TO
s. per day in the transportation Of
passengers to and from the hotel. De
ny that waiting room has pot been
established and assert that said hotel
would not be considered a convenient
waiting room. Answer denies that
K. K. AnSOn, as receiver, ever refused
commOdate the CEREAL public. The
defendants admit that they refused
the operation of the depot car TO an1
from the hotel, except they be paid $40
per week, and deny that the failure of
the plaintiff, COnrOr, TO accept such
proposition, has been detrimental TO
Others than himself.
Answer denies that the depot car
is stopped two blocks from hotel and
detained about Il minutes before ar
rival and departure Of trains TO the
Inconvenience Of the patrons OF said
hotel. Denies that defendant cOfpOr-
alton was ever requested by other
than j. CoDnOr TO operate its cars to
the Willamette Hotel. Answer also
denies that the taking OF electric
lights Of tue rece iyer by said COnnOr
as the same have been taken by pre-
yi0us prOprietOrs, would De contrary
TO the interests OF said COnnOr. De
nies that il is not TO the interests of
the defendant corporation or TO any
one else with the exception Of COnnOr
that the former street car service be
maintained. Denies that f. Il. Arson
as receiver is abusing the trust and
confidence repOsed in him by the hon
Orble court IN the management of the
! road. Denies tnat any or petitioners
| have ever contributed large or any
sums Of money towards the further
ance OF the business interests of the
| defendant corporation.
AS further and separate answer
| the receiver alleges that the petition
| filed with the court is not the same
one or at all similar 10 the one signed
by the petitioners named; that
Holmes & Kellogg never had any
authority 10 appear before this court
for any OF the petitioners other than
j. Connor and w. f. Boothby; that
| original petition was worded in a
manner materially different from the
one on file in this court; that many
Of petitioners signed petition with.
out reading the same on the
representation 1f W. +. BOOthby,
one Of the petitioners that it was a
petition 70 the defendent corporation
alone; that said petitioner, ]. Con-
nor, is only person really interested
in this controversy; that receiver has
made no change in the schedule of the
operation Of his cars that would at
feet the business interests of the
petitioners except that ia the special
service between Hotel Willamette and
depot and said change affects only the
business interests Of j. COnnor; that
j. COnnor as petitioner, haYing secured
other names through misrepresenta-
tiOn, is seeking To have this honor
able court compel the receiver of the
road TO operate depot car to aud
from his hotel 10 the detriment OF
other hotels in this city without pay
ing aOy compensation for such services;
the receiver alleges that the depot
lire never extended in front of prop
erty owned by petitioners; that il be .
gins at the intersection Of State and
Liberty streets and extends thence
70 the depot that the junction Of the
cOmpany's main lines is at the corner
Of State aud Liberty streets; that cars