The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-08-05
ORDER NOT MODIFIED
TRACTION COMPANY MUST SHARE
 EXPENSES OF PARK.
Unless This is Done Judge Jones Will Not Allow Yellow Cars to
 Run Into the Resort.

Judge Jones of the United states court yesterday morning. after hear ing arguments of lawyers, refused to
 modify his injunction restraining the Montgomery Traction Company from building it's tracks into Electric Park in opposition to the wishes of the Montgomery Amusement Company, op- orators of the park, unless the Trac- tion Company will agree to share in the expense of maintaining the resort. The court was opened at 10 o'clock and counsel for the Traction Compa- ny began arguing the legal points in- volved in the case. Judge Jones an nounced at the conclusion of the ar gument for the Traction Company that
 he did not care to hear from lawyers for the Amusement Company and in-
 tiimated that he had, some time ago. listened to speeches running over
 twenty hours and that he was fully acquainted with the law and the facts involved in the case.
 Then followed a decision in the mat
 ter which Is believed to be final as
 far as the lower court Is concerned.
 Judge Jones said to the lawyers in substance that, ordinarily. uninflu-
 enced by any right growing out of the
 provision that a right of way might be granted etc, the Amusement Com
 pany, which occupied no such relation
 to the public that any statute or prin-
 ciple of the common law compelled 1t to serve the public impartially, might, at will. let into the park one person or class of persons without charge might charge others, and might, without giving any. reason for it. refuse to admit others. under any circumstances.
 Judge Jones said that the whole question involved in the case was whether the rights of the parties, in view of the provision in the lease. were changed so that the Traction Company could complain that charges for admission to the park were made in the case of its passengers and none made in the case of passengers of the other road. The court had held. he said. when the matter first came up that both sides had rights. and they must be exercised reasonably and fair ly; that 1t was shown that the Amuse- ment Company and the Street Rail- way, competitors of the Traction Com pany, had spent large sums of money in fitting up the park. and 1t was conceded that the Street Railway was contributing to the expenses of keep ing 1t up. He said the Amusement Company had the right, no matter what its motive. to insist that the Traction Company should divide the contribu tlOnS or the StTeeI hdllWay IOWdTOS keeping up the park before going in side the park. on equal terms with the Street Railway to carry passen- gers who were attracted there by the expenditures and contributions of the other road. Whenever this was of fered to be done. he said. the injunc- tion would be modified. but in the ab- sence of any such offer 1t would not be modified. --
 Judge Jones said that the contract right reserved to grant a right of way. etc, never contemplated that any new street railroad. coming into the park, should have the right to manage the Amusement Company's business so s to prevent 1t from insisting that the new road should do its share towards paying the expenses which another road contributed to keeping up the park.
 He accordingly denied the motion to modify the injunction, but stated that whenever the Tractor Company offered to do equity the court would require the Amusement Company to let in the Traction Company's passen- gers on equal terms with those of the Street Railway.
 It is understood that counsel for the Traction Company will appeal from the decision of Judge Jones to the Circuit Court of Appeals.