Norwich bulletin., 1920-03-13
The application was

spoiled it. The application was granted.
 Groton and stoninston Line.
 Receiver Perkins then testified re- garding the Groton and Stonington line. He saiA that there was POT miles of trackage from Groton to Westerly and between three and four miles on the Old Mystic branch. Both lines had mortgages of $475,000. Re ceiver Perkins said that the lines were losing money and that there had been a loss of several thousand dol lars since the beginning of the re- ceivership. While he had no figures available as yet, February would show an unusually large loss, because of the weather and the expense incurred in fighting snow and ice. Recei<er Perkins thought there was soms equity in the line which can be operated at a profit, however. He was of the opinion that if some one bought the road and reorganized it, it could be operated to advantage. He believes it can be sold and that a purchaser can be found.
 He said that if permission were not given to sell the equity, the equity of the Shore Line Co. would be wiped out by the foreclosure of the mort gage and no benefit would acrue to the company.
 Has Possible Purchasers In answer to an inquiry from At torney Hull, Receiver Perkins said that he had two groups of people in view who might buy the line. i Attorney Hewitt wanted to know 1 how the road could be operated with l out rolling stock and if 1t were not true that one hsSf of the rolling stock | of the company did not consist of | open cars, which were not used. The l witness declared that they were used Not on the regular schedules" said Attorney Hewitt.
 Receiver Perkins declared that il was possible to run the road with the
 property which the company had ir 1 1916.
 Attorney Hewitt inquired if the road had everything necessary to operate l the road, including power houses, and l the witness replied that it had. l Attorney Hewitt asked if Receiver 1 1Nrkins had changed his mind about 1 the advantage of operating the line l with other 'tcats and dogs, to whic1 1 MT. Perkins replied that MT. Plan 1 thought it advantageous to operate l the s&es in conjunction with othel I lines but he (Mr. Perkins, now shougf that II would De pest to run It a. l an intra state line instead of con
 meeting it with an interstate line. Attorney Day declared that tn, 1 proposed action was the only way tS
 continue operating the road; the onl.
 way is to get new blood and nev
 money and this could only be accom- plished in the manner proposed. H. 1 asserted that the receiver can't con
 tinue operating the road with tn l present heavy losses.
 Attorney Hewitt doubted if tn
 court was the proper place to go t l for a discontinuance if the road. H 1 thought that permission would hav 1 to be sought from the legislature an, he quoted several authorities. H said that he had no objections to tn receiver negotiating for the sale o
 the line. His only interest was tn i protection of the public by a continu ance of operation of the road. I Judge Kellogg granted. the receiv
 CT authority to sell the equity in tn
 line subject to the approval of tn court.
 l. Receiver Perkins then presented hi acciunt frIm January i to February which showed loss of s9,853.26 fo the month and a total loss of $39. 6S0.2S during the five months of re ceiyership.