The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-12-11
RAILROAD ACTS IN GRAY PROCEEDINGS Wants Case Taken Out of the
 Supreme Court MOVES TO QUASI WRIT lnasmuch as a Higher Court Has As. sumed Part of the Case Motion Is
 Made to Get It All
 Together.
MOVES TO QUASI WRIT

Montgomery, December 10. 0.-(Special.)- Attorneys for the Louisville and Nashville railroad are trying to get out of the city court of Montgomery all the litigation in- oident to the effort of Henry B. Gray and others to dispute with the system the con- trol of the South and North. The latest move is a petition in the supreme court to quash the return of A. D. Sayre to the alternative writ of prohibition, in the contempt proceedings incident to the judg- ment of custer issued last May against the said Louisville and Nashville, the ef- feet of which was to deprive it, if it had become operative of the control of the South and North
 Phares Coleman and s. H. Dent, repre- sentng Henry B. Gray and few other small stockholders in the South and North, secured from the city court of Montgomery a judgment busting the Louis- vile and Nashville from control of the South and North on the ground that it had not come into control in line with the stautes of the state The attorneys for the Louisville and Nashville appealed DuL the ildy Slue dlButd tiltil ltit oapptdi did not supereede the judgment and the officers of the road were in contempt in continuing to operate the South and North. Judge Sayre, on application, therefore issued rule nisi directed to the officers of said road citing them to show cause why they were not in con- tempt.
 Before any action could be taken, how ever the attorneys for the Louisville and Nashville applied to the supreme court to issue writ of prohibition against such action of the city court and the matter being set down for hearing next week, there was stay in the proceedings. Since that time the attorneys for MT. Gray have answered this plea for a wit of prohibi- ton, which answer is on file. Now comes the Louisville and Nashville forces, Gregory l.. Smith of Mobile, John P. Till man of Birmingham, and George W. Jones of Montgomery and ask that inasmuch as the supreme court has taken over the other features of the case, it quash the return of Judge Sayre in the contempt proceedings.
 The only other feature of the fight be-
 
 by MT Gray yet in the city court of Montgomery, is the application of Walter Moore for receiver, a hearing for which was never set. The application was re- corded in the equity side of the court and Is there to await decision on the other cases.
 The Petition.
 The petition just filed by the attorneys for the Louisville and Nashville follows:
 "Comes the petitioner, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad company, through it's attorneys and moves the court to quash the return of the Hon. R. D. Sayre, judge of the city court of Montgomery, to the rule nisi directed to him in said cause from this honorable court:
 T. Because said return sets up no issua- ble fact, or other matter not apparent upon the face of the petition or appica- tion for said writ
 ''2. Because the record made part of the application for the writ of supereedeas or prohibition shows, and the return does not deny the facts showing, that the city court of Montgomery has no Jurisdiction to try petitioner or it's officers, for con tempt In the matter in which they have been cited to show cause, and the Hon. A. D. Sayre, judge of the said city court of Montgomery. was, at the time of issu- ance of such writ, familiar with the re- cord in the said cause. and knew that the said court had no jurisdiction.
 g. Because the petition shows that the Hon. A. D. Sayre, who issued the rule nisi against petitioners officers and en- ployers 10 show 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 of the facts set out in the petition, in this couse. show ing a want of jurisdiction in the said city court of Montgomery, to punish said of ficers and employees in such matter, and nevertheless 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"