Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-09-21
THE TELEPHONE SUIT.
RESUMED in CINCINNATI YESTERDAY
THE FIRST TILT.
Between Counsel of Opposing Parties on the Question
Of jurisdiction Judge Thurman Holds the
Point Against AHOnies Harrison and
StOrOw-The Courts Ruling.

SlNClNNATl, september SU.-1ne OHl-
ted States Court was crowded this morning
when the case of the Bell Telephone Com
pany was called before Circuit Court Judge
Jackson and Ditrict Judges Sage and
Walker. Among the parties were Charles
P. Bowdicth, of Boston, Vice President of
the Bell Company; Henry Meztger, of
Pittsburgh; A. D. HallOck and George n.
Stone of the Cincinnati branch. The Gov
ernment's counsel present were Hon. A.
G. Thurman, of Columbus, Ohio; Grosve-.
nor P. Lowrey, of New York; ex-SOlic-
itor John GOOde, ofYirginia; JEFF Chand-
Ter and Chas. ). Whitman, of Washing
ton. For the Bell company were j. J.
Storrow, of Boston; Hon Joseph L. McDOn-
aid, of ofIndianapolis; Hon. A. r. Harrison,
of Columbus o., and Hon. A. F. Perry, of
Cincinnati. The only persons who ar
gued were Messrs. Thurman, Harrison and
Storrow.
The Bell company had filed plea
against the jurisdiction and alsoa motion
to quaSh the marshal's s return. The Gov
ernment moved to strike the motion from
the files. The preliminary question arose
as to whether the question OF jurisdiction
should be raised by the motion or by the
plea. The Government insisted that il
should only be raised by q plea. The Bell
Company pointed out that the practice
was not uniform, some courts insisting on
one way and some upon another, that they
had for safety filed both, and were content
to have one hearing on the question under
either the plea or the motion, the court
saving their rights under either if the Su
preme Court should ultimately determine
that the other was the proper form.
The Court ruled that it would hear the
question OF the suffcency in law Of the re-
turn under the motion, and it would hear
the question of the truth Of the return I'M
der the plea Tone argument to cover the
whole and that itwOuld frame its ruling
so that neither party should beprejudiced
by any mistake in question of form. The
argument under this ruling is i'll progress
this afternoon.
In his argument this morning Judge
Thurman said: This company has not fill
ed this motion to quaSh, but Immediately
atteria plea in abatement reciting precisely
the same facts. Now, We oppose the action
ofthe Telephone Company in its attempt
to set aside the jurisdiction of this court
by any such proceeding as this and we
move to strike the Telephone COmpany's
motion from the file for three reasons:
First, because the question of the jurisdic-
tiOn of the court cannot be raised by mo-
tiOn; second, this motion is insufficient in
law; third, this motion is oyerruled by the
plea in abatement"
Mr.. X. A. Harrison, of Columbus, in re-
plying to Judge Thurman, made the
opening speech on behalf Of the Bell Com
pany. His argument was that the Objec-
tions to the filed motion of the Bell Com
pany to quash the MarShal's return can
be properly adduced in the hearing of the
said motion to rid the file of the first
named motion. Such counter motion
Mr.. Harrison claimed, first, unnecessary;
second, irregular, third, unprecedented;
fourth, intrOductive of great irregularities
and absurdities in Federal judicial prac-
tice.
Mr.. StOrrow, counsel for the Telephone
Company, finally came forward ana Sllu
that the counsel for the Telephone Com
pany were willing to have both questions
that of form and that of fact-heard on
the plea, but desired that the motion to
quash also appear on the record. Judge
Jackson then ruled us aforementioned.
In the afternoon Mr.. J. J. StOrrow for
the Bell Telephone Co., began the argu-
ment against the jurisdiction of the Court.
He took the ground that the
service was imperfect, and made state
ment of the manner of conducting the
business of the company with n view to
showing that it had no agents or en-
ployecs in Ohio, who could be brought
into court in such manner as to give the
court jurisdiction here. His argument
was not ended when the court adjourned.