
    Rome Street R. R. Co. v. Van Dyke et al., and vice versa.
    
    The controlling question being whether a certain bridge had been dedicated to the use of the public and by the public accepted, and the evidence upon this subject, though conflicting, being sufficient to warrant the presiding judge in finding that there had been such dedication and acceptance, and it not appearing that any right of the plaintiff will be prejudiced by allowing the defendants and the public generally to use the bridge until the question at issue can be determined by a jury on the final hearing, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the interlocutory injunction prayed for.
    July 17, 1893.
    Petition for injunction. Before Judge Henry. Floyd county. May 23, 1893.
    Dean & Smith and Foüché & Foüché, for plaintiff.
    Reece & Denny and Harper Hamilton, for defendants.
   Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed.

Cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.  