The Birmingham age-herald., 1902-05-27

< MT. Murphy has been general < % manager of the Cincinnati South -~ % ern for several years. but his ju- ~ < risdiction was extended over the A. -% Y G. s. only few months ago. Be- < < fore going into the Cincinnati : < Southern he was in charge of ope- < < rations on the East Tennessee, and -~ A came to that road from the Erie < ' where he was general superinten- < ' dent. MT. Murphy is recognized as < < one of the foremost railroad men % < in the country. % <<<<%<<<<~<<N< line are urging this extension of the schedule and their petition has been prac- tically granted.
 The train in question Is operated be- tween Selma and Akron by the Southern and between Akron and Tuscaloosa by the Alabama Great Southern. Mir. Mur- phy said that he was not ready to state officially what his decision would be. All he would say for publication was that he had taken up the matter. and that 1t would probably be several weeks before a definite, announcement would be made. A number of details will have to be ar ranged and these details take time.
 But while MT. Murphy declined to say that his decision would be favorable, it
 
 of the other defendants was the owner of said judgment under the sale of Mary T. Warner. executrix, and neither admits nor denies the same but calls for strict proof thereof.
 STOCKHOLDERS MEETING.
 Defendant admits its stockholders meet ing of January 25. but whether the repre- sentations alleged to have been made at such meeting by Defendant Shook were in fact made 1t neither admits nor denies. It admits that Defendant Mccormack did make a proposition at said meeting to purchase 220 acres of land of the Ensley Land Company. but is not advised, and therefore. neither admits nor denies that said proposition was in fact made by the Ensley Company.
 Further answering Section 16 defendant is not advised and neither admits nor denies the allegations therein contained as to the organization of the Ensley Com pany. or whether it was organized for the purpose of providing machinery for the defendants to appropriate for their benefits lands of the Ensley Land Com pany.
 Defendant admits the conveyance of It's lands by the Ensley Company to defend- ants Barker and Bowrop on December 2S, 1897. but whether said Ensley Com pany should have made said conveyance to the Ensey Land Company defendant is not advised and neither admits nor denies.
 Defendant admits the execution of the declaration of trust set out in Section l9 of the bill but says that so far as it Is advised from its records said declara- tion was not authorized or approved by said stockholders or directors of said Ensiey Land Company. It neither ad- mits nor denies the allegation that the same was made by defendants Shook, Me Cormack, Baxter, Bowron and Ramsay merely for purposes of fraud or deceit
 It admits the conveyance by Baxter and Bowron as trustees of said Ensley ruary p, 1898 and also admits that said lands were the most valuable of the Ems ley Land Company, and 1t admits the other conveyances mentioned in section 20 of the bill, but whether they were made fraudulently and in furtherance of the scheme and plan set forth in said bill, 1t is not advised and neither admits nor denies the same. It admits the lands were very valuable. but whether the