Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1900-01-14

In the Circuit Court, Judge Hervey,
yesterday, a decision was made in the
long and involved case of the Wheel
ing Bridge Company v. w. P. Hubbard
and others, in which the litigation
growing out of the formation of the
Wheeling Bridge Company and the
erection of the bridges over the Ohio
is settled so far as this court is con-
cerned. The matter has been before
the courts for ha~lf-a-dozen years, and
from the prominence of the parties in
volved and the large sum mentioned,
has attracted more than usual atten-
ton from time to time.
A history of the case is, perhaps, best
set forth in the opening pages of Judge
Hervey's opinion, which are here re-
produced from the original document:
"The plaintiff, the Wheeling Bridge
Co., seeks to o from the defend
ants, W. P. Hubbard, ]. M. Sweeney,
and w. D. Uptegraff, $125,OOO and
POUNDS its right to recover on the
charge that the above named defend
ants, together with G. w. G.. Ferris
and Gustav Kaufman, entered into an
arrangement by which it was agreed
that Sweeney, Hubbard and Uptegraff,
who were three of the five directors of
the Wheeling Bridge Co., should pro-
cure for Ferris & Kaufman the con-
tract for the construction of the plain
tiff's bridges across the Ohio river at
a price of about SIPS, 900 above the cost
Of construction; that this profit of
S125, 900 should be shared equally by
the five persons interested in this con-
spiracy, namely: Sweeney, Hubbard,
Uptegraff, Ferris and Kaufman; that
the plan so arranged was carried out
and the contract, through the efforts
Of the three persons named, who were
members of the Board of Directors, was
awarded to Ferris & Kaufman at
1852, 900, which was about SIPS, 900
above the cost of the bridges. This is
the substance of the plaintiffs case.
A great many facts are averred in the
bill, and a vast amount of evidence
bearing more or less upon these facts,
has been taken, but the whole case
turns upon the question whether there
was such a fraudulent conspiracy as
alleged, and whether the contract was
let under arrangements perfected by
those alleged to have been engaged in
that conspiracy.
1.-THE questions to be settled are pure
ly questions of fact; and the large
amount of testimony in the case rem
ders it impossible for me to do
than briefly outline what | believe to
be the facts, without undertaking to
refer to the testimony of the particu-
lar witnesses on which my opinion is
based.
Some time before the incorporation
of the Wheeling Bridge Co. the street
car lines had changed their methods
of operation, and introduced electricity
as the motive power. The Wheeling &
Belmont Bridge Co. refused to permit
the electric cars to be run over its
bridge. not deeming it strong enough
for that use. G. w. G. Ferris, of the
firm of Ferris & Kaufman, came to
Wheeling as the representative Of the
Johnson Co. to look after the sale of
the rails to the Street Railway Co.
Sweeney, who was interested in the
street car lines, knowing that Ferris
was an engineer. talked to him about
the situation of the Street Railway Co.,
the desire of that company to get its
lines across the river, and asked his
advice as TO the strength of the Wheel
ing & Belmont bridge. Ferris seems
from the very beginning to have had
in his mind the prospect of securing
the profitable contract for his firm.
and he went carefully W. the ground
and advised Sweeney that the suspen-
sion bridge was not strong enough TO
carry the electric cars. The project
of building a new bridge was then
discussed with others. and more espe-
cielly with those interested In having
the electric lines extended across the
river, including ". P. Hubbard and
w. d. Uptegran. On March 8, 1889,
Ferris wrote to Sweeney q letter in
which he places ths bridge project in