Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-11-22
AGAINST TIE CITY.
mvrHm INTERHsriN" CASES
..,rtvG IN VARIOUS COURTS.
rqr TELEPHONE INJUNCTION NATTER.
nrlng Action Against W. C.
,dams's Bondsmen-iig suit for
,,-,i,lcv Destroyed - Controversy
~. r,res Due over Five Years.

80 fn TuEcs Due HN't haNF A'''
.... ,., or Richmond Is at present IN
., several very interesting and in
.. f..y cases. tIc most important OF
.., ,s tho Injunction suit Of the South
..l Telephone Company. enioining
...ri-irality from interfering with its
and wires throughout the city.
,.-. ~ the Dispatch are doubtless
.r.,r With this case. the bin In which
r,s in the United States Circuit
some weeks ago by Messrs.
- a. holiday and Hil Carter. coun-
.., fo- The plaintiff company. The prin-
e.. Ground upon which the injunction
.-,rtcd was that the position Of tho
yss contrary 10 the Act of Congress
,-.s recording telegraph-lines on post
.. ,tc The city Council some time
evoked the franchise Of tho South
~, r,I IN this city. and recently direct
- Che city Attorney 20 take steps to
Ave che poles and wires Of that COM
..-- removed from tho streets OF Rich
s Ii was when this point was
.r.7 that the company sued out the
.rrtion referred 70 above. The case
r-,hablv come up in the United
..,.,s Circuit Court between the 10th and
rl u December.
~rg DEMURRER OF THE CITY.
A. This time the matter VIII be fully
,--l Mr. Meredith the City Attor-
.- has fled his demurrer 20 the bill OF
r. plaintiff company, and. after deal
IL generally with the bill, the demurrer
s forth the following reasons why the
81. should bc dismissed:
That So apueareth by the plaintins
,.g showing by tho said bin that It is
... ..rtIoi 90 the relief prayed for by
D.. sal bin against this defendant.
That the act of Congress entitled,
rt- r.t Co aid On the construction of the
te-lrh-lnes. and 10 secure to the gov
eminent tho use OF the same for postal,
r.1ry ana other purposes" approved
June oL 1866 and claimed IN SAID bill as
t-r..fI1r protection 90 said complainant
r..1-t respondent. does not apply to the
l. complaint and only applies to tele-
r.gl companies.
Tha. the said act OF Congress. APP
--r.' July a. 1866 II "a shall apply az
m % The complainant. does not give 1t
my right t0 erect IT'S poles and run IT'S
rras along tho streets Of the respondent
Fthrlt the consent OF the respondent.
r.fo.t t0 reasonable regulations as 10
hs r1rtes position. and number Of poles,
DBL. pay for the use OF rs streets.
That " said act of Congress. ap-
proved Jolly o. 1866. puts the said COM
rarr-t as free OF the control of the re-
ror.aut as is claimed IN said bill Of
comp. .nart. the said act is unconsttl-
rr1-I and void.
THAT notwithstanding the power OF
Congress- in matters Of interstate com
u.-c8. and Notwithstanding the enact
mont OF said act OF Congress. approved
July o. ls'5 the complainant has no right
FL. .re,t l's poles and run its wires along
t'e streets Of the respondent without the
consent Of The said respondent. and upon
such reasonable terms Is 20 the routes,
position, and number OF poles. and pay
f.r the use Of said streets. as the said
respondent might impose.
TIE RIGHT RESERVED.
O. That the manner Of determining as
t) tle routes or the poles and wires Of
no complainant. and the conversation
t1 be- paid the city. was agreed upon in
the ordnance OF the said respondent. and
c..sl ~ The said bin Of the complainant.
as approved June D.. 1884. upon condition
tla- The city should reserve the right 20
3. lLe the complainant 70 remove said
poles and wires after the expiration OF
twelve months, alluded TO in said ordi-
nance
That the poles and wires Of the com
r1a1- as appears from said bill Of
lr.airf. We're erected under an
e-'a'uent contained in the ordinance Of
a-.d respondent, and cited I'm said bill Of
complainant. as approved June 26, 1854;
AMI tat the respondent. I'm passing the
ordnance approved December IL 1894.
md referred % In said bin Of complaint,
A i'1 -.rns the complainant to remove
4, poles and wires, merely exercised the
power rrhtfuly reserved IN said ordi-
ia-ce approved June q. lSfA
-a4t under the statute o. Virginia
r.'ri 10 IN said biz Of complaint.
ha respondent was giyen authority to
reserve the power 90 revocation con-
,-ael .r tho said ordinance. mentioned
.1 '.- Pin. as approved June Is, 1884,.
d. 4rr power o. revocation reserved IN
sa'- ordnance approved June %. 1884.
l been properly exercised IN the ordi-
nance rtei in said bill, as approved De-
-suter 3d. 1895.
Wherefore. and for divers other and
g'l causes Of demurrer. appearing In
s-.- t.I. This defendant doth demur there
Ana f, prays the judgment Of this
l1r'r be court. whether 10 shall be COM
Ned 90 mako any answer to the said
..-. and Sc may humb'y pray 10 be hence
All with IT'S reasonable costs in
us behalf sustained.
BRANDY BURNED IN 1865.
hn''le. very interesting suit involving
probably 5000, is that Of Wallace
---as. Tho city. This case IS now pend
DO tl3 supreme Court OF Appeals Of
'-gat. and viii be heard In a couria
e.. weeks. The suit is to recover dam
.r.H q .Hr. 20 -. H.
-otl on the night Of the evacua-
-. under orders from the City Council
ila aI the liquor found IN order to
l-'eAi 81. falling into the hands OF the
iry In this controversy Mr. Gus
..'-8 A. Wallace, OF this city. is the
t-t Tic city Circuit Court decided
90 favor Of the city IN Novem-
.' -i tlt it was then taken TO the
-f- ot Appeals.
-.. s'. OF Powell VS.. the city OF Rich
which was argued IN the Supreme
f OF Appeals. Is most Important. as
Involves large sum Of money to the
4nis case IS one brought 10 es-
whether or not the city has any
lL Tor taxes due for a period Of five
or rather, whether the statute
ieuous applies 20 taxes due. The
.t hand involves taxes due by Mrs.
'- owner o. the old Richmond Thea
covering q period Of about twenty
's and the sum total IS quite large.
-.' matter is now in the hands OF the
r ana decision is expected at an
far.y date.
SUIT tGAINsT ADAMs's BONDsMEN.
-'e City Attorney viii IN the next ten
'. bring cult against the bondsmen
The late William q. Adams superin-
-.it " the City Cas-Works, for the
n due 20 the city by reason Of the
age which occurred at the gas
during the administration OF MI
N'.|NN Tnfa aoffop hoe bcrv doiotyod