Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-08-04

NhNs va lNAto III Hdll NLttlH LOT llt
purpose or conducting electrical energy
and laying wires and gas mains under
the streets for the purpose OF conduct
ing electrical energy and gas, and said
franchise also provides for rates Of COM
pensatlon TO be paid by said Salt
Lake City and its citizens for electric
lights and electric power and for street
railway fares, and directly affects the
financial interest OF all citizens Of the
city Of Salt Lake.
Eighth Plantif1' Is informed and be-
lleYes, and therefore alleges, that these
defendants, rs members OF the city
council Of Salt Lake City, Utah, intend
to. and will. unless restrained by an
order or this court, vote for the granting
OF said franchise to the Utah Light &
Railway company, TO the irreparable
damage and injury Of this plaintiff,
ana plaintiff alleges that any vote of
any OF said defendants In favor OF said
franchise would be illegal and that
without the votes OF these defendants
sald proposed franchise will not re-
celye votes sufficient TO pass Il, but
with their votes II will be passed by
said city council
Ninth-That said franchise asked for
by said Utah Light g. Railway company
Is q valuable property right and asset
OF said city Of salt Lake City, and said
defendants Will, unless restrained by
this court, vote TO grant said franchise
In It's proposed form, or az may be
modified, without any adequate or pro-
per considera tion and to a corporation
IN which they are directly interested
as aforesaid, ana this plaintiff has no
adequate, or any remedy at all at
law.
Wherefore plaintiff prays that the de-
PENDANTS, as members Of the city coun-
Ell OK Salt Lake CITY, Utah, be perman-
entity restrained and eniolned from vot-
lng upon any proposition OF granting
the Utah Light & Railway company,
or 70 any person for II, any franchise
or licenses. or from voting upon any
proposition Of entering into any con-
tract Of any kind whatsoever with said
Utah Light q Railway company or
with anyone representing said Utah
Light q Railway company and that
untll the application for said miunc-
ton can be heard, an order be issued
restraining said defendant from any
OF said above mentioned acts, and The
plaintur prpys for such other relief as
may be Just aud equitable.
ALLEN Il. SANFORD,
Attorney for Plaintiff,
state Of Utah, County Of Salt Lake -ss.
Thomas Homer being first duly
sworn, dcposcs and says that he is tho
plaintiff named In the foregoing COM
paint; that he has read said CONF
paint ana knows the contents thereof.
ana mat the facts therein stated are
true except as to those matters stated
on Information and belief, and as to
lhnan fuFfQ hn
true, THOMAS HOMES
Subscribed and sworn to before nae
this 3rd day Of August, 1906
BISMARCK SNYDER.
'Sea)' Notary Public,
SET FOR AUG, 10.
The restraining order Issued by Judge
Armstrong was made returnable before
Judge Morse on Aug 49, Shortly after
the Papers we're served on the three
counclimen consultation was held on
the mayors office IN which the mayor,
city attorney and the councilmen con-
cerned took part. 1t was decided to
have the matter heard at once II posi-
pie Just Before the council meeting
Atty, Allen I. Sanford was consulted
in regard 10 an immediate hearing and
consented TO take the matter up,
HELD NlGHI SESSION,
Judge Armstrong consented 70 held a
night session and arrived AZ the build
Ing aOout 3 o'clock. 1t was a half hour
later before all parties concerned were
IN the courtroom ready for the hearing
The council took recess 70 wait for
the three members to get out of tho
courtroom and the majority OF the spec
tators at the council meeting went up
to Judge Armstrong; court and lis
tened TO the proceedings,
DEY FOR CoUNCILMEN
When court was called to order City
Attorney Dey asked permission TO file
an affidavit by the three councilmen
showing that they had no interest
whatever IN the property stocks or
bonds Of the Utah Light q Railway
company. Attorney Sanford asked who
Judge Dey was representing In the case
and the latter replied that he appeared
for The three counclmen who were de-
fendlnts In the case.
OF COURSE HE OBJECTED
Mr.. Sanford objected TO the city at
torney appearing for the councilmen
and stated that his duty as city at
torney did not require him 10 appear IN
behalf Of the councilmen individually.
Judge Dey took issue with the attor-
ney FOR plaintiff on that point and
Judge Armstrong ruled that the city at
torney was properly In the case.
TAKING OF TESTIMONY.
1t was then suggested by Mr. SAM
ford that instead Of Cling aftidayits the
councimen be placed under oath ana
give their testimony IN open court, IL
~ 30 Al gt
ographer, SO Joseph II. Tuddenham, son
of Councilman Tuddenham, and a clerk
in the city recorders office, was pressed
into sTyice
COUNCILMAN TUDDENHAM,
Councilman Tuddenham was then
called to the witness stand and was
Intercepted by Judge lie Grand Young
as 70 his interest IN the Utah
Light & Railway company In
answer to one question he said that
ne owned no stock IN the company and
had no interest IN Il whatever, and
never did have, Mr.. Sanford objected
TO the question an the ground that the
books Of the company would be the
best evidence as TO whether or not the
witness had an interest IN It, Judge
Armstrong overruled the objection ana
the answer was allowed TO stand
He was then asked whether or not
President Joseph H. Smith owned any
stock IN the company as trustee for
him. The question was objected TO by
Mr. Sanford on the same ground az the
previous one, namely, that the books
of the company would show whether
or not President Smith owned any
stock. The objection was overruled,
and Councilman Tuddenham replied
that President Smith or any other per-
son did not hold any stock OF the COM