The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1919-02-14

The road was offered On two sep
arate propositions. First il was to
be sold ito be held used and operat
ed as a common carrier" out 10 Sc
cure which as much as $200 GOO was
required to be offered before the
road would be knocked down to the
highest bidder
Second, if as much as s20C000 was
not bid. then II was 70 be sold with
privilege of dismantling or junking,
going to the purchaser. The exact
wording was:
"lf as much as 5000, 900 is not Did
for said property to be held, used
and operated as common carrier
as aforesaid then / snail offer all of
said property for the purpose of and
with the privilege on the part of the
purchaser of dismantling the same
and in the event the bid received IN
der the second offering herein pro
Vided for shall not exceed ny one
hundred thousand dollars the highest
bid received under the first offering
as above stated then the property
will be declared sold to the bidder un-
der the first offering above mentioned
otherwise the same will be knocked
down to the highest bidder under
the second Offering"
The road was sold under the sec
Ond proposition and brought 1925
600 1t was bought in by William
Hood, representing the bond holders.
Said William Hood was the complain
ant in the case. as trustee for the
bond holders.
But the Oklawaha Valley railroad
will not be junAed That is where
Sam Hilburn comes in together with
Messrs E E. Haskell, also OF this
city, and Attorney DeVane who repre-
sented the Florida railroad commits
sion
These gentlemen petitiOned Judge
Bullock for leave TO intervene for the
purpose Of having that portion OF tne
decree which authorized, under Ger
tain conditions the janking Of the
road, eliminated.
To the News Col. Hilburn in ar
interview gave the following state
ment:
THE press reports which ! have
seen in the papers are misleading
The road will not be junked although
it was sold under that provision OF
the courts decree.
The case came up for a hearing
last Saturday before Judge Bullock
After argument and due considera-
ton OF the matter, Judge Bullock
stated that he was satisfied that un'
der the law presented 10 him that he
had no legal right or authority 10 au
thorize a junking or discontinuanco
of the road, and furthermore. that i
he did have this right under certain
circumstances. the demonstration
made by Mr. Cummings receiver, IN
the operation of the road, clearly
rbowed that the road under proper
management would pay the expenses
of operation and maintenance. and
at the same time allow something on
the investment, and should not, there
fore be junkel or discontinued.
DR DTc
foreclosure had been advertised 10
take place on last Monday. and as
the decree of the court contained
two provikions for sale, one with
out iunking privileges and the otner
with iunking4 privileges, the court.
refused to permit the railroad cop-
mission TO intervene, but stated that
if would not confirm any sale unoer
the iunking provision of the edcree'
In other words the court held that II
? had the full power TO regulate inns
matter when the matter of conflrma-
tion of the sale came up. and that
there was no necessity for lnter'eh-
tion.
THE point that the people are IN,
+erested in in this matter IS the I'M
rortant fact that the road "iil not
he tunked, or its operation discon-
tinued
There have been a great many
hearings on this matter, but 1t can
he considered now as definitely set
tied that the lad will not be 1unkeo
bu+ on the contrary will be operated
and the people along the lne may
govern themselves accordingly
u....an nf Mrs. Park, Trammeil