The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-07-13
TRACTION COMPANY
 MUST REMOVE TRACKS
(COncluded.)

pany into the park was under discus sion. In view of the conflicting yer sions which the affidavits give of what really was agreed on al that meeting. 1t that no definite conclusion was reached as to any particular thing upon which the minds of the parties finally met. The sale of the property of the Amuse- ment Company. the keeping up of the place of amusement at Pickett Springs, and other things were discussed. and 1t seems that any definite agreement was to depend upon the legal rights advised by counsel. When the second meeting broke up defendant was in- formed that plaintiff could make no legal agreement. and insisted upon an agreement was reached as to the par ticular place or places in the park where an entry might be made. The hs Thoe nd inc ssTeS tRa the officers of the Traction Company were led to believe that no bona fide resistance or objection was intended. or would be made. by the Amusement Company to any reasonable entry It might make Into the park. This feat ure relieves the defendant of the char acter of a wanton and forcible invader of the Amusement Company's premises. at least as to great part of the prop erty taken, and undermines much Of the force of the earnest argument of complaints counsel that court or equity ought not to permit the reten- and a high hand Moreover, complain ant had no right to object to any reasonable entry, and when made by force by one from whom possession was wrongfully withheld. a court of equity will not protect complainant's posses sion against any reasonable entry, by one from whom 1t Is wrongfully with hold, by It's extraordinary remedies; but F. F@. ..tI~ I~l Nra pass upon its possession by the ordi- nary civil and criminal remedies
 Amusement Company has Rights of His
 Own.
 It is strenuously urged by the defen- dant that the Street Railway Company uphold its rights in the contest with another transportation company, mat ter in which the publis is interested However. they may be, the Amusement mana cement and control of property in its possession. When their property has been invaded 1t Is their right, under the Constitution and laws, to in cannot deny them recognition. because the effect of their enforcement might result in advantage to some one else. or disappoint some public expectation. The bill and affidavits show that the Street Railway Company had made large advances to the complainant, and with the desire "to encourage passage to the park for the purposes of the revenue from street car fares" and that the contract between the two com panies bound the Amusement Company Ito encourage in every reasonable way travel over" the lines over the Street Railway, during the continuance of the lease. Good faith on the part of the Amusement Company demanded, at least, that it should not be party to a selection and use of place inside of the park, which would give a rival company. which had not participated in the responsibilities and expenses of the park, favored location inside the park to carry off passengers, whose coming there was one of the chief reasons which induced the contract between the Amusement Company and the Street Railway Company. It Is needless to say that the Street Railway is not a party, and its rights are not before the court. Whether or not the asser- tion by the Amusement Company of its rights may hinder and prevent free competition between the rival Street Railway Companies Is not a matter for the court to hero consider. Its only duty in the premises Is. to declare the rights of the parties before 1t. as the law determines and fixes them.