The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-07-25
Lawyers for Traction Companies
Make Hard Fight in Fed
eral Court.
NO DECISION RENDERED #:
Date Set for Final Decree in Pas
senger and Power Receiver
ship Case.

After a long season Of strenuous
work as a member of the United States
Circuit Court OF Appeals at Asheville,
Judge Edmund Waddill. Jr.. returned
here Thursday night, and, for the pur-
pose of clearing the docket In the
District Court as far as possible be-
fore leaving for his summer vacation,
heard argument yesterday morning In
two important cases, both of which re-
late to the affairs OF the Virginia,
Passenger and Power Company. Judge
sIVaddlll will leave this afternoon for
the Virginia Hot Springs, and will not
return to the city until the latter part
OF September. He was fairly besieged
yesterday by lawyers representing va
rious matters In litigation, but he
gave precedence to the Passenger and
Power casesS which had been placed
ahead Of others. on the docket. The
me related to the validity of a city
ordinance concerning universal trans
fers in the city between the ANAL
ganated street car lines, and the other
to the foreclosure of certain mort
cages and the final sale OF the prop
erty.
In the former case the court heard
full argument on the motion of the city
to dissolve the temporary Injunction
restraining the enforcement of a re-
sent transfer ordinance. and withheld
Ia decision.
Tor Final Hearing.
In the latter case, September cath was
fixed as the day for a final hearing on
The question of foreclosure. and also
of exceptions TO the report recently
submitted by Special Master Addison
5 T. Holiday.
Only four lawyers spoke In the trans
& fer Injunction matter. three of whom
were against the city. Attorney Van
Brunt, Of New York, opened the case
on behalf of the Central Trust Com
pany. which was In the position of the
complainant and City Attorney Pol-
lard followed in support OF the mo-
Z United at the instance Of the city of
Richmond.
Hon. Eppa Hunton, Jr.. spoke briefly
AZ for the receivers in opposition to Mr.
SsPollard's motion. and Hon. Hill Car
b ter closed the case along the same
II line. speaking for the Central Trus,
s8s Company The argument was purely
legal and technical.
s: Mr.. Pollard recited the ordinance a,
length and contcnded that under all
circumstances the city had tho RICH,
Ito prescribe regulations for the con.
duct of a public service corporation
which had received all It's rights anc
powers from the city
polio. Regulation.
He regarded it largely as matter
5&of police regulation, and cited cas-,
after case in the practice of this ant
sather States 10 show that in the pas
K sage of an ordinance providing 70
universal transfers the Council wa
clearly within its rights. Mr., Polar,
cent the ground from under his op
ponents on one point at the start b.
denying that he questioned the juris
@ diction OF the Federal court in TIN
matter. He declared that he acknowl
S&gedged the right OF the District Coul
$aSis to deal with It. but moved to dlssolv
the temporary Injunction on IL,
ground that the city ordinance was
reasonable regulation Of the condue
IA of a public sarvice corporation wifi
@ lin the limits Of the city, according I
Il the law, as enunciatcd by the hishes
& courts In the land. 81
s5s3 City'x Right Denied.
In his argument Mr. Van Brnnt de
II. MED the right OF a municipal corpora
N tim 10 enforce such an nance. IA
and his colleagues claimed that sue
iiS m Sent orc elnent would be to Impair I'll