- to - day ▁business ▁in ▁Ven ice , ▁he ▁tried ▁in ▁ 1 9 0 6 ▁to ▁take ▁over ▁the ▁railway ▁from ▁Co it , ▁although ▁they ▁had ▁both ▁signed ▁a ▁five - year ▁contract . ▁He ▁forced ▁the ▁railway ▁to ▁close ▁down ▁for ▁six ▁months ▁during ▁the ▁summer , ▁alleg edly ▁because ▁one ▁of ▁the ▁wooden ▁brid ges ▁needed ▁to ▁be ▁replaced ▁by ▁a ▁concrete ▁structure . ▁ ▁In ▁November ▁ 1 9 0 6 ▁Kin ney ▁tried ▁to ▁take ▁over ▁the ▁railway ▁while ▁Co it ▁was ▁out ▁of ▁town . ▁On ▁Co it ' s ▁return , ▁Co it ▁removed ▁some ▁arm atures ▁and ▁other ▁essential ▁parts ▁from ▁the ▁locomot ives ▁before ▁Co it ▁went ▁away ▁on ▁another ▁trip . ▁Because ▁Kin ney ▁could ▁not ▁get ▁these ▁parts ▁mach ined ▁without ▁draw ings , ▁he ▁could ▁not ▁operate ▁the ▁railway ▁for ▁the ▁remainder ▁of ▁that ▁year . ▁He ▁su ed ▁Co it , ▁and ▁it ▁came ▁to ▁a ▁court ▁case ▁that ▁was ▁decided ▁on ▁November ▁ 2 0 , ▁ 1 9 0 6 , ▁at ▁the ▁Los ▁Angeles ▁County ▁Court . ▁Co it ▁and ▁his ▁colle agues ▁were ▁de emed ▁not ▁guilty ▁regarding ▁the ▁claims ▁of ▁v andal ism ▁and ▁the ft , ▁but ▁Kin ney ▁started ▁civil ▁proceed ings ▁against ▁Co it , ▁in ▁which ▁Kin ney ▁convinced ▁an ▁art it r ator ▁to ▁make ▁a ▁decision ▁in ▁his ▁favour ▁on ▁January ▁ 1 9 , ▁ 1 9 0 7 . ▁Thus ▁Co it ▁had ▁to ▁re