The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-12

showing that the daily or "ghost" car had
been laughing stock. Yesterday more
evidence of this kind was introduced.
Among the witnesses were the following
Bush-street residents: J. M. Manning, D.
II. Hitler, Patrick II. Feely. August Hahn,
George K. Fitch, Henry Webster and Peter
Hennesey.
All were positive that the daily car run
along Bush street was unnecessary. Many
of them referred to it as ''passing jest''
to the residents. They had seen it, passen-
gerless, rolling along or resting at points,
while its pace was compared to that of the
snail and said to be the laughing-stock of
the school children, who were never
known to make use OF it when late for roll
call
pany moved to strike out all of it on the
ground that it did not meet its contention
that the accommodation was amply suffi-
cient for the demand, but the motion was
denied.
The defense therefore called testimony
IN support of its contention. Railroad and
business men were placed on the stand,
and OF the latter the main question asked
was whether the failure of the company to
run cars on Bush street, except two or
three times q day, caused any inconveni-
ence in reaching downtown.
Thomas Brown of the California Bank,
Adam Grant, w. D. Montague and E. Ep-
stein all testified that with the Suffer-
street road so close they were perfectly
satisfied with things as they were. The
last witness stated that he preferred to
live on street without railroad.
The railroad men, including the secre-
tary of the company, A. K. Stevens, and J.
l.. Wlllcutt, were unanimous in their
opinion that the superior attractions of
the cable-road on Suffer street would have
rendered any further accommodation on
Bush street futile. Henry Lynch. superin-
tendent of the Market-street railway. said
people prefer electric to cable and cable to
horse cars. He estimated that there were
at least 10 per cent more people on Suffer
than on Bush street.
Secretary Stevens stated that if there
had been any demand for more cars more
would have been put on. The ''ghost car"
had no specific timetable, but was run once
a day over the entire route.
E. L. Anderson, once conductor on the
ghost car for two months, stated that dur
ing that time he thought he had carried
two passengers on Bush street and thought
he had collected 10 cents. He was asked
such suggestive questions as:
Did the car have any driyer2"
(Which way did it go?"
"What was its pace?'
l.
ibid you, as conductor, collect fares?"
Did you have a bell punch?"
ALI these questions he answered salts
factorily.
J. G. Owens, another conductor, said that
in two days he had carried one passenger,
and thought he had collected his fare.
He was not quite sure about it. The
round trip occupied about an hour.
The case was then submitted, and Judge
Hebbard decided it without much talk
He said he did not think the first ground
of the complaint to the effect that the track
was not completed in the time specified by
the franchise would hold. AS for the
other contention that the accommodation
provided by the company was not suffi-
cient for the public needs, his Honor
thought the testimony had shown beyond
doubt that the accommodation had not
been intended for the benefit of the public.
but only to retain the franchise for the
company. He gave judgment for the
plaintiff.
The case will be carried to the Supreme
Court