The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-12-01
LAWYERS ARGUE THE POINT
Decision in the Gas Trust Case Will Be
Given This Morning.
All of Yesterday Occupied By the Lawyers in
Commenting Upon the Evidence
Brought Ont in Trial.

Judge Taylor was occupied all of yestcr-
day in hearing the argument in the case of
Augusta s. Nickerson VS.. The Consumers
Trust. The argument was opened 10y w.
T. Browder. on behalf of the r~elatrix.
There are TWO kinds of discrimination. he
said, charged by the relatrix in her COLI
plant. The first arises by inn IMPLICATION of
law, as where persons on either side
of relatrIx's house are using gas and gas is
refused her; M the second, arising from
favOritism. in point of time or place. All
the legal questions were grouped around
these W questions in Mr.. Browders argu-
ment, and grew out Of tho alleged legal
duties resulting from the duties and obi
options of the Trust company to the pubic.
Mr. Browder further showed that some OF
the most important of the legal questions
involved were settled by the case of the
City ofRushville VS.. The ushvi Natural
gas Company. decided by the Supreme Court
OF Indiana. Oct. 81, 1891. There the city of
Nashville. by ordinance. licensed the gas
Company by name, to use its streets and
nlleys for the purpose of putting In a gas
plant. The company expended 100000 IN
q plant, and entered into contracts agarc-
eating $4,000 yearly income. Tho
city of Nashville then : enacted a
new ordinance, more specific in terms
and imposing additional conditions and re-
strictions upon any company nsing its
streets and alleys, providing penalties, etc.
1t was, In fact. said the speaker, almost an
exact copy of the Indianapolis ordinance,
requiring a bono of $1,000. a written ac-
ceptance, a general plan of it's system. that
the company should furnish ali applicants
for gas along it's lines yer applied for.
The gas company refused to accept the
new ordinance and was proceeding under
old ordinance. The city authorities arrest
ed their foreman. and threatened TO arrest
Others of its employees. The gas company
applied for an Injunction, claiming that
the new ordinance did not apply to them.
On appeal the Supreme Court held in favor
of the city of RushyIlle as against the COM
pany. The court also approved a case. Mr..
BrOwder showed. holding that q gas COM
pany must supply all who apply on reason
able terms.
The attorney dwelt upon propositions
which is that q mandate will lie where the
remedy III damages is inadequate, and
where TO get gas mandate is the only rem
edy. 1t was also shown the company may
be compelled 70 furnish gas where dlscrImi-
nation can be shown. He then proceeded
to show by undisputed facts where
in the discrimination lies. 1t was
brought out In testimony that
parties outside of the city. namely Wood
ruff Place, whereas, having undertaken to
supply the city. and having pre-empted
sections of the city to supply all on Its lines
with gas. 1t has refused to do so. The COIN
psny IS furnishing additional gas for IL
Illuminating purposes, and has been extend
ing its service In and other
blocks. Other like instances were cited.
In reply to the averment of the company
that it Is q physical inability to extend
It's service, Mr.. BrOwder said tho facts when
sifted showed only financialinabiiity. And
this statement was controverted by show
the Broad Ripple plant for $50. O0O. and the
Welsbach burner patent. it could not plead
lack of credit. Mr.. Browder also adduced
Supreme Court decisions, showing that the
notice of the company that 1t would not
take additional consumers was void.
w. Il. Fishback replied for the defense.
He took the opposite view of all the points
adduced. and the conclusions drawn by
Mr.. BrOwder He dwelt effectively upon
the point that a board of directors OF q cor
poration are endowed with the right of
discretion, and that the court would not
presume to mandate an act of discretion.
Mr.. Fishback spoke for an hour.
Judge Hill, also for the defense, fol-
half. He addressed himself to all EXPOSE
tion of the kind DISCRIMINATION of which.
in his opinion. the court ought to take
notice.
S. o. Pickens concluded the argument for
the plaintiff. replying to the points ad-
vanced by the defense. He summed up the
position of the plaintiff in an effective
form.
Judge Taylor announced that he would
deliver his opinion on the argument at 9
o'clock this morning.