Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1890-09-12
I. :. COURT
Business Disposed of by Judge jackson
Yesterday.


In the United States District Court
Yesterday the case Of the L. 5. VS.. Por-
ter. for Illicit retailing of liquor came
up and was continued until next term.
In the District Court the case Of Bar
bara Cramer, of this city, indicted by
the L. 5. grand jury for sending obscene
matter through the mails in letters to
different persons, was called and the de-
fendant plead guilty, being fined so
and costs.
In the much discussed and noted
litigation Of Justice George Arkle vs.
The Central District and Printing Tcle-
graph Co. (the Telephone CO.. quietuS
was placed upon further litigation OF
this character by Judge Jackson in the
Circuit Court Of the United States yes
tcrday. 1t will be remembered that JUS
tice Arkle refused TO comply with the
rule established by the Company requir-
ing subscribers to call up each other by
numbers so as to expedite the business
at the Central office and in con
fOrmity with the usage in the
telephone business in other cities, and
brought suits before Justice Davis FOR
damages by reason of the refusal
of the company TO connect his
telephone with telephones Of
others when he gave the names mere
ly and not the numbers. At one period
these suits were brought daily for small
amounts alleged as damages for loss OF
use of telephone for the proceeding day.
The company obtained the removal Of
the cases into the Circuit Court Of the
United States about as fast they were
brought. Finally, becoming tired OF
the removal business, it obtained tenn
porary injunction or restraining order
restraining the bringing Of further suits
for such cause of action.
The matters all came up yesterday in
the United States Court, the Company
being represented by Attorney General
Caldwell and w. Z. Hubbnrd, Esq, and
Mr.. Arkle by L. ). Jordan. Esq. His
Honor ruled that the removals were
properly allowed, as the amounts in con-
troversy, under the present removal
law, in such cases made no difference
and oyerruled motion TO remand. The
eases, ten in number, were tried before
lllf UMuEt III lAiN vi IL Ih4 anu tANr
mcnts rendered in all OF them in favor
OF the Company for costs The Court
held that the contract between Mr..
Arklc and the Company under which
the plaintiff used his telephone, and
which was in evidence duly signed by
him, clearly and concluSiyely showed
by its plain language that the
Company was to have the right
from time to time to make
rules governing subscribers in the use
of the instruments, and that it had the
right as one of such rules TO require the
use Of numbers in place Of names in
calling for connections 70 the central
Office,
The injunction against any further
suits for similar causes of action was
made perpetual by the Court at the
cost Of the defendant in that suit, Mr..
Arlilc.
This completely disposes of what was
at one time a much talked of resistance
against the right of the Telephone Com
pany to establish the number rule, and
settles the question Of jurisdiction Of
the United States Court in such cases
and the right Of the Company To make
or change its rules for the conduct OF its
business from time 10 time.