The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-12-19
GRAY CASE ARGUED
LAWYERS SPEND ENTIRE DAY BE-
 FORE SUPREME COURT.
Consideration of Montgomery Bond Matter Was Fostponed--Justiees Hand Down . Number of
 Opinions.

The Henry B. Gray vs. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company liti- Fation was brought up in the Suprem Court yesterday. when arguments were heard on the appeal from the quo war ranto decision rendered, by Judge A. D. Sayre in the City Court of Mont gomery several months ago. Argu- ments by counsel occupied the entire day, and when the tribune adjourued for the night. one lawyer still remaln. ed to be heard. The argument VIII close this morning.
 The quo warranto proceedings wer2 instituted in the lower court by couh- sel for Henry B. Gray months ago. The City Court rendered decision which called upon the railroad compa' ny to show by what authority 1t was operating the South and North Rah road of Alabama, which now forms the connecting link in the Louisville and Nashville Railroad system between Montgomery and Decatur. Later. Judge Sayre rendered a decree ousting the defendant company from its control or the South and North.
 Gregory l.. Smith of Mobile and John P. Tillman of Birmingham were the attorneys for the railroad yester- day, and Phares Coleman and s. II Dent Jr., of Montgomery represented 
 terest Arguments were made by all the lawyers except Mir. smith. who will conclude the pleading today.
 Tomorrow another phase of the case will be brought up, when arguments will be heard on the application of the railroad attorneys for writ of super sedeas, to restrain Judge Sayre from Interfering with the management or the South and North until the nnai set oN0oaaHinneG the higher courts. This writ was ap- piled for when contempt proceedings were brought by counsel for Nsr. Gray in the lower court against the rail- road company. for continuing to ope rate the South and North, supporting his position in the case.
 The long drawn out arguments on the railroad litigation prevented the Court from reaching the appealed case of the City Council against Mrs. Essie l.. Reese, over the issuance of the refunding bonds. This case probably will be taken up tomorrow, or possibly, later in the week.
 Ten opinions were handed down by the Supreme Court. One of these was an appeal from an everything of de- murrers in the Chancery Court of Cher okee county in the case of I. A. Ellis against Mrs. NJ. E. Cobia and others. Tne fOWeT court dCllOH NtS The suit had originally been instituted to recover s1,50O for damage suffered by the plaintiff from the raising of a mill dam on the property of the de- fendant.
 Abraham Brothers of >Iontgomery lost their appeal in a suit for the re- covery of s20o from the Southern Rail- way for the alleged non-delivery of mule shipped to them. The suit was lost in the Montgomery City Court, and the decision was affirmed.
 r By the affirmation of the action of che Mobile Circuit Court, new trial is granted in the case of Loui Hart seeking damages against Frank A. Hervey and Charles B. Hervey, pro- prietors of the Bienville Hotel The original bill was entered in the Mobile court two years ago. The plaintiff all legged that during the Mardi Gras Fes tival in that city in 1904. he had se- cured a room in the hostelry. and, leaving the hotel, had returned to find his room taken. Tn the trial he tes- tified that he had been III at the time, that he had been offered a cot in the basement but that the hotel was una ble to furnish him with covering for 1t and that he had been forced to seek other lodgings which he secured witt | difficulty. The jury in the case foun for the defendant, but later new tria