The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-12-11
FILES NEW PETITION
|. AND N. WANTS JUDGES RETURN
 QUAsHED.
COsnpIscated Litigation of HenFy h' Gray Against Railroad Company Still Further Confused by
 Action of AttwRneys.

A new move was made yesterday in
 the vexing legal fight preeipitaed nS'
 Henry B. Gray. attacking the control
 of the South and North Railway by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Com lnanv. The move was made In the fil- ling of a petition by the attorneys Tor Ithe Louisville and Nashville Railroad lin the Supreme Court to quash the re- turn of Judge A. D. sayre to the al- lternative writ of prohibition In the Icontempt proceedings. The case has gone so far in its lesai icomulications that it is decidedly puz~ ziIne to the layman, Henry B. Gray, the Birmingham banker and the Lieutenant ICsovernor- elect of Alabama, attacked Ithe control of the South and North Railroad by the Louisville and Nash vile on the ground that 1t was illegal and unjust to the minority stoekhold-
 CTS, of which he was one. The court sustained the contention of MF. Gray ana his associates, that the South and North had not come under the control of the Louisville and Nashville under any law of Alabama. An order was ts-
 sued from the court of Judge Sayre busting the Louisville and Nashville from its control.
 The Louisville and Nashville immed-' lately appealed the case, but the att torneyts for Mir. Gray and his associates
 made the point in the city court that the appeal did not supersede. the order of custer. On their raising this point,
 Judge Sayre directed an order to the officers of the Louisville and Nash vile to come into court and show why they were not in contempt.
 In return, the legal representatives of the Louisville and Nashville went again to the Supreme Court, this time asking for a writ of prohibition stop ping the contempt proceedings until the appeal from the custer decision should be passed upon. This feature of the case will be argued next week before the Supreme Court. A plea to the writ of prohibition directed to Judge Sayre has already been filed with the Supreme Court. The return which Judge Sayre made to the Supreme Cour- in regard to the contempt proceeding yesterday was attacked in the follow ing petition:
 "Comes the petitioner, the Louisville and Nashville. Railroad Company. through it's attorneys, and moves the court to quash the return of the Hon. A. D. Saylre, Judge of the City Court of Montgomery, to the rule nisi direct ed to him in said cause from this hon. orable court;
 First, because said return sets up no issuAbIe fact. or other matter not apparent upon the face of the petition or application for said writ.
 Second, Because the record made part of the application for the writ of supersedeas or prohibition shows. and the return does not deny the facts showing, that the City Court of Mont- gomery has no Jurisdiction to try pe- tltioner. or its officers, for contempt in the matter in which they have been cited to show cause, and the Hon. A. D. Sayre. judge of the said Eity Court of Montgomery was, at the time of is- suance of such writ, familiar with the record in tine said cause, and knew what the said court had no jurisdiction.
 Third, Because the petition shows that the Hon A. D. Sayre, who issueo the rule n isiagainst petitioners off cers and employers to shoy why they should not be punished for contempt for the judgment of said court, at the time of the issuance of said petition knew all the facts set out in the peti- tion. Tn this cause showing a want of jurisdiction in the said City Court of Montgomery. to punish said officers and employees in such matter, and new ertheless issued said rule nisi against them, and the return to said rule nisi does not deny any of the allegations of the petitions showing said facts"