Page:St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Berry (41 Ark. 509).pdf/5

41 Ark.] accountant are still worse. Those estimates are wonderful. Plaintiff's auditor says the books show a cost of construction and equipment of the C. & F. road up to date of construction, May 1, 1874, $23,157,000.62.

In the Loftin case above cited (30 Ark., 698), the same plaintiff stated that "the total cost of said railroad and equipments was about $11,157,000." Now, in some mysterious way, it is more than doubled. According to this sliding scale, there is no hope that the road will ever pay the requisite ten per cent. As the testimony of plaintiff was inadmissible, it was not necessary to move to exclude it. Fricks v. Rector, 4 Ark., 277; Barraque v. Price, 9 Id., 548; Hardy v. Heard, 15 Id., 188.

The only testimony in the transcript, as to the cost of building and equipping the road, is that of the witness Hughes.

His estimate, made from actual acquaintance with the cost and construction of railroads in this State, (including bridges first made of wood and now replaced by iron), of the total cost of the road and its equipment is $7,712,500.

The auditor of plaintiff states the net income of the main line in Arkansas for 1882 to be $1,312,612.26, which is more than ten per cent. on $7,712,500.

Even taking the branch roads of plaintiff into consideration, which cannot be done, as they are plainly not included in any exemption with the main road, the evidence shows the net earnings of the road largely over ten per cent.

Undoubtedly, plaintiff never had any exemption, but if it ever had, the evidence clearly shows that its prosperity has outgrown the exemption, and the exemption has long since ceased.

SMITH, J. This suit was brought for the purpose of enjoining the board of railroad commissioners from assessing for taxation the plaintiff's road, rolling stock, fixtures

41 Ark.—33