Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-06-29
POLICE COURT UPHELD
Had Jurisdiction in the Telegraph Line
mems Case
Use of Public Reservations Discussed
by Judge Colc-The Points Mt Issue
An Appeal Probable.

Judge Cole today decided that the Police
Court has jurisdiction to enforce the pro-
vision of an ordinance of the late corpora
ton of Washington approved November y,
1862, prohibiting the occupancy of the open
spaces, public reservat atoms, streets or pub
lie grounds in the city by private persons or
for private purposes.
The case in which the decision was rem
dered today was that of Philip A. Defer
and Harry Smith, lnemen in the employ of
the Postal Telegraph Gable Company, who
were convicted in the Police Court last
month Of violating the provisions of the
ordinance in question by extending tele-
graph lines of the company along and
across 9TH street in April last. Before the
parties were sentenced by Judge Kimball
Mr.. Perry Allen, their counsel, filed a petit
ticn in the District Supreme Court, praying
Tor writ of prohibition.
Inc petition was presented to Judge Cole,
who directed that Judge kimball should
snow cause why the writ should not be
granted. The matter was argued before
Judge Cole several weeks ago, Messrs s.
L. Thomas and A. B. Duvall representing
the Police Court. On behalf of the defen-
dants it was contended that the ordinance
CT 1862 did not. and never was, intended
to apply to the erection of telegraph wires,
and that such a construction of the ordi-
nance on the part of the Police Court was
an abuse of its power. 1t was also con-
tended in their behalf that the telegraph
acts of Congress aEnulled, superseded and
repealed the ordinance, and also that the
ordinance was repealed by the act OF Con-
gress of June o., 1874. The street in uues-
ton. the defendants argued, was in effect a
post road of the United States, and that
the company, therefore, had perfect right
to use it. The hanging of the wires across
the streets on poles, the defendants also
commended, could not be deemed to be an
occupation or obstruction of the streets by
private persons for private purposes. FL
nally, il was contended by the defendants
that the District could not interfere in the
matter, for the reason that the ownership
Of the streets of the city was not in the
District, but in the United States. Counsel
for the District, of course, contended just
the other way.
In rendering his decision in the matter
today Judge Cole stated that two questions
were presented to the Police Court judge
first, whether the placing of the wires
across the street in the manner described
in the Information was violation Of the
ordinance, and, second, whether such acts
were eXcusable or warranted because of
the alleged right of the telegraph company
to occupy the street. While Judge Cole in
timated that he might have decided those
two questions differently, he held that the
only question for him to decide was
whether the Police Court had jurisdiction
in the matter. He was firmly convinced
that the Police Court had such Jurisdiction,
and the petition for the writ of prohibition
would therefore, have to be dismissed. 1t
was clear, said Judge Cole, that the writ
could not be used as a writ of error, the
United States Supreme Court having held
that writ of prohibition could only lie
where an inferior court has exceeded its
jurisdic ton. In his opinion the Police Court
had acted wholly within its jurisdiction in
the case. and he would, therefore. refuse to
grant the writ and would, accordingly, dis
miss the petition.
1t is probable that an appeal will be noted
to the Court of Appeals.