Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-09-22
FARE HEARING SET
Washington and Rockville
Case to Come Up Oct. 19.
OF INTEREST IN SUBURBS
Residents of Nearby Maryland
Towns in Northwest Concerned.
STATE FILES ITS DEMURRER
Answer to Complaint of Trolley
Company Against New Law
Fixing Fare Zones.
OF INTEREST IN SUBURBS
STATE FILES ITS DEMURRER

Special Dispatch to The Star.
BALTIMORE, Md, September 22.-The
hearing on the demurrer against the
amended bill of complaint filed by the
Washington and Rockville Railway Com
pany against the states attorney and
sheriff of Montgomery county, has been
set for hearing October 10 before Judge
Rose in the United States court here.
The demurrer was filed July last by
Blair Lee and George H. Lamar. attor-
neys for States Attorney. Bowie F.
Waters and Sheriff William Edward
Welt of Montgomery county.
The demurrer sets forth that 1.-THE suit
Is not one over which this court has
jurisdiction, because the issues presented
by the bill and the amended bill Of COM
plant do not arise between the COM
plainants and the defendants and do not
concern them. but arise, If at all, between
the complainant and the state of Mary
land, which has not consented to be sued
and cannot be sued without it's consent,
and therefore has not and cannot proper
ly be made party thereto.
Exceptions to Complaint.
THAT the amended bill does not al
lege, and neither the statute Of the state
of Maryland sought to be invalidated
nor the constitution and the laws of the
state of Maryland contemplate or require
that these defendants, or either Of them,
will take any action prior to the final
adjudication of any issues which may
arise prior to final judgment,
That 1t appears from said amended bill
OF complaint that the maximum rates pre-
scribed by the statutes sought to be in
validated do not exceed in any particular
the rates heretofore fixed and in opera
ton by the complainant at the time the
statute was passed and when the suit
was filed, over one Of the sections or
fare zones Of its railway; and that in eff
equity court in perpetuating a system of
determinations against persons and
places, apparent upon the face of the
amended complaint and exhibits thereto,
in direct violation Of the general law. as
well as the special law Of Maryland in
force at the time of the fling of said
amended complaint.
Fails to Show Depreciation.
THAT the amended bill of complaint
sets forth an alleged state Of facts
which constituted conclusive pre-
sumption that there has been a large
depreciation in the value of the COM
pla1nants property. the ascertainment
Of which is necessary to the determina
ton Of the essential question. of valua-
ton involved in this cause; but the
amended bill utterly fails to contain
any averment in respect to the extent
of said depreciation, which such aver
ment IS a necessary prerequisite to the
maintenance Of the suit under the the
DRY Of compliments bill.
THAT the amended bill of complaint
fails to contain q detailed statement of
receipts and expenditures. as are essen
tial to the Affirmative showing necessary
to be made by the complainant as con-
dition precedent to the relief claimed.
THAT it appears on the face of the said
amended bill and the exhibits thereto that
the complainant is not entitled to the re-
lief craVed.'