Evening journal., 1899-09-28
KENT TROLLEY FIGHT
Resumed in the Court Of
This County To-day.
LIVELY TILT AMONG LAWYERS
COUNSEL CLAIMS
THAT Attorney GENERAL
WHITE HAS NOT THE RIGHT TO
HAVE THE CASE TRIED HERE.


WHITE HAS NOT THE RIGHT TO
HAVE THE CASE TRIED HERE.
At the opening of Superior Court
his morning disagreement took place
between the lawyers engaged in the
case Of the State VS.. the Delaware Elec-
trio Railway Company.
Argument was for and against the
quo warranto writ to prevent the Della
ware Electric Railway Company from
continuing the construction of its road
in Kent county Attorney General
White and Henry R. Ridgelt represent
ed the state and Anthony Higgins and
William S. Hilles appeared for the rail-
way company.
Mr.. Hilles said that he did not wish
to criticise his learned friends who
were opposing him. but he thought
that Mr. White was exceeding his au-
thority when he asked for a rule
against his clients. as there existed no
statute of law giving him authority TO
prevent, and to seek the assistance Of
the court to prevent, a corporation
from carrying out the provisions set
forth in its charter. He further stated
that there is a constitutional law
against such a procedure, and read
from section / of the State Constitu-
ton, which says that the General AS
Isembly, by general law, shall provide
for the revocation or forfeiture OF all
charters, and that such a proceeding
shall be taken by the attorney-general
in manner as provided by law. He
also said that there is no law by which
the general could act, and
therefore no basis for his application.
That Mr.. Whiee is an interested attor-
ney for the company, which he heard
was really the plaintiff in the case. He
was satisfied that the court would not
allow the state official to use his office
in the interest Of one corporation
against another.
Mr.. Higgins then took up the argu-
ment, and when speaking Of Attorney
General White termed him the leading
dog in the other pack, who was aftel
John II. Harkins, the fox" He stated
that the court could not act in the mat
ter within the jurisdiction Of the Leg
islature, only to deprive a corporation
of its right, as was being undertaken
by rival corporation in the name Of
the state.
Mr.. Ridgely then took the floor and
remarked that the defense, in regard tC
the constitutional law quoted, had
caused him considerable surprise, bul
added that the same constitution pro
vided that no law not in conflict will
constitutional law shall cease, because
of fundamental law. That the attor-
ney-general could move to seize prerog
atives that had been misled, usurped ol
stolen from the constitutional law.
Mr.. Hilles argued that the cast
should have been brought up and ar
gued in the Kent county court.
Mr.. Ridgley replied that it was al
llowable to change the place Of hearinl
when it was impossible to receive jus
tice in a court where partiality hel'
sway.
Mr.. Ridgley then took his seat an'
lAttorney-General White arose and als'
answered the question asked by MI
lHnles as to the reason the aEgumen
was not heard in Kent county by say
ling that this court, having jurisdiction
lin Kent county, thought better to nj
the charge and hear the case in Ne'
lCastle county.
The argument here ended until thi
afternoons session.