The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1909-03-03
Must Sell Its Street Railway
Holdings
THE FULL BENCH FINDINGS
Massachusetts Court UphOlds the Decree
of a Single Justiee--StOck of Rail-
road Must Be Disposed of
by July /.

Boston, March 3.--The full bench Of
the supreme court yesterday affirmed a
decree of single justice requiring the
New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail
road company TO part with all its hold
ings, on or before July l, 1909, in the
Worcester & Southbrdge, Worcester &
f. Blackstone valley, Worcester & Webster,
Webster & Dudley, the Berkshire, and
the Springfield street railway companies.
This dispels the final hope of the rail-
road company for relief in the courts Of
this commonwealth in the celebrated mcr-
ger suit.
The proceeding against the road was
brought in 1905 by the attorney general
with view to compel the road to divest
Itself of its holdings in the street rail-
ways named. The supreme court decided
in favor Of the attorney general and a
decree was drawn and entered. The road
said It had doubt as to the meaning of
the decree and wanted the court to set
out more clearly and Enthusiastically what
Il could do and could not do. The full
bench can find no reason for any doubt
on the part Of the road as to the mean
ing and intent Of the order.
The court says:
"This is an appeal from formal de.
cree entered by a single justice In pur-
suanOe of resOript from the full court.
Tho decree is printed in connection with
the former decision of this case in l9s
Massachusetts,, at page 433. The only
question open on this appeal is whether
the decree properly conforms to the re-
script.
"The rescript ordering a decree for
the informant was sent on May 8, 1905.
On June the defendant filed a motion
setting forth that it had parted with
whatever interest in, or control of any Of
the shares of the capital stock Of any
of the street railway corporations men
toned in the information it may have
had except its interest in the shares of
two corporations named, and moved that
it be allowed to prove these facts upon
the hearing Of any motion by the attor
ney general for final decree This was
not in the form of motion for leave
to file supplemental answer, and it
set forth no such specific facts as should
be set up if party wishes to open
case for a new trial by reason of new
matters of defense which have arisen
since the retrial and decision of the is
not state that the defendant ever had
any interest in the stock in question,
but refers onl yto whatever interest or
conrol it may have had Such
motion was addressed to the discre-
ton of the court, and the discretion was
rightly exercised in denying it. The only |
relief asked for by the informant was
hn injunction compelling the defendant |
to comply vita the statute by ceasing
TO hold or control, directly or Indirectly, |
the stock referred to in the information. |
The decree was entered as of May 81 the
date OF the rescript, and il applies to the
facts as they then appeared of record
If any question ever arises under it,
compliance with the decree may be shown
by the defendant 90 well by proving that
it parted with all its interest in the
stock before June %, when the decree
was actually entered, as by proving that
it parted with it afterward
"a decree is always to be construed
in reference to the facts stated in the bill
and proved or admitted at the hearing.
For its effect it rests upon the averments
Of the bill, and it has no relation to mat
tiers not included in the litigation. The
decree in this case is not an attempt to