Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-03-21
END OF THE POLE CASE.
n Conviction ON One Charge and an
Acquittnl ON the Other.

n Conviction ON One Charge and an
Acquittnl on the Other.
The case of the District of Columbia
against the United States Electric Lighting
Company, charged with erecting a pole at
18th street and Pennsylvania avenue with
out permit. and with unlawfully main
tanning line of poles on 18th street, was
disposed OF late yesterday afternoon by
Judge Kimball in the Police Court.
On the first charge, that of occupying pub
lie space with overhead wires, the court
saw nothing on which he could hold the de-
PENDANTS. and accordingly dismissed the
charge. The second charge, preferred
against Linemen Bashford and Scarlon.
covering the tearing up of the sidewalk and
erect!ng new pole, Judge kinba,l sus-
tanned, holding that the act was unauthor-
lied and unwarranted. In view of the cir
cumstances. however, the court decided not
to impose a fine, but to release the defend
ants on their personal bonds.
This morning Lawyer Reddington and tho
defendants Scanlon ard Bashford were in
court, and counsel stated to the court tina
after a conference with his colleague yes
terday. he had determined to give notice of
a motion for new trial.
Judge kimball said he announced yester-
day his finding in the case. When making
his remarks he was. he said, so tired and
himself clearly understood This morning
ne desired to tell why he concluded to take
the personal bonds of the two men found
guilty. 1-'0
II have no question that the fAw reou;red
the obtaining Of a permit for the erection
OF the pole" the Judge said, land that the
tearing up Of the streets for any purpose
whatever must be done under the super
vision or the District Commissioners While
there is no question about the guilt of these
defendants. yet l think the case presents
such facts that no fine ought to be imposed. :"
Ihe Judge said that the proof had dis
closed
pole at Pennsylvania avenue and 18th
street. owned by the Western Union Tele-
graph Company. and used jointly by that
company and the United States Electric
Light Company. permit to put a new
pole in Its place had been refused BY the
Commissioners, who believed from reporis
that the conduit on 18th street could he
used to get these overhead wires under
ground.
I'm this belief" said the court 1.-The Com
missioners were mistaken, as the testimony
shows. MIR. Thomas beirg refused permis-
SION to EJECT the pole, and understanding
| the legal responsibility should tie pole fall
proceeded to erect the new one"
The judge said he could understand the
reasons which influenced the work, and
while ne sustained the law. he did not feel
disposed to impose fine.
In conclusion, the judge said he had sus-
| tanned the authority of the Commissioners
! over the streets, but the excuses of Cant.
Thomas are of such a nature that they
| ought to be considered in the matter of i'm
| posing a fine.
Mr.. Pugh, who was the only represent Ia
| tive of the District in court said that the
| law contemplated daily prosecutions and
| provided penalty cf from $25 to $50 day.
He wanted to know If the court would hold
| the company's excuse valid should datly
| prosecutions be started.
| Judge Kimball replied that he would not.
| The company, he said. must get its wires
underground. or get from the Commission
er5 permission to maintain the pole =
Counsel for the defendants have fonr DAYS
| in which to Ale q motion for q new trisi.
| but 1t is generally believed that they viii
! have the case certioraried to the upper
court. as they do not agree with the courts
| ruling on the law.