Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-11-13
HEAR THE BELLCASE.
TELEPHONE INJUNCTION MATTER
ARGUED IN COURT OF APPEALS.
The Claims of Both sides Presented
and tho Matter Submitted for the
Courts Consideration--0ther Causes
Heard.


The case OF the City of Richmond
against the Southern Bell Telephone and
Telegraph Company came up for argu-
mcnt in the United States Circuit Court
of Appeals yesterday before Judges
Simonton, Brawley. and Purnell. The ap-
peal in this case was taken from de-
cree of the United States Circuit Court
OF this district. BY that decree, OF which
Judge Golf was the author. 1t. was ad-
Judged that the company has the right
TO construct, maintain. and operate us
lines over and along the streets ana
| alleys OF Richmond. both those now &C.
| cuped by the company and those not
| occupied, and 10 put up, renew. replace
| and repair its lines. poles. and wires
along the streets without being restrained
| by the city OF Richmond.
The claim of the company to these
| rights Is based upon an act of Congress
passed July "a. 1866. ito aid in the con-
struction OF telegraph lines" and the
company further alleges that its wires,
| poles. and lines in the streets and alleys
of Richmond constitute part OF the
postal service Of the United States.
WHY THE CITY APPEALED.
The city OF Richmond, through her at
torney, Mr.. c. V. Meredith, appealed rom
| Judge COTS decree upon the following
assignment of errors
The court erred in the decree OF Au-
| gust 23d in failing TO pass upon the Ell
| feet had upon the alleged rights or the
complainant by the said statute OF VIZ
ginia and the said city ordinance Oh
| June 26. 1854.
That there is error In the decree be-
cause telephone company is not tele-
graph company under SAID act ol |oii-
gress.
Because IL said act Of Congress does
embrace telephone companies, 1t only
embraces such as do an interstate busi-
ness. and only TO the extent OF its IN
| terstate business; while the complainant
only does a local business.
| Because. even if the complainant does
an interstate business 1t also does
1 purely local business, and yet the court
| in its decree, refuses 10 recognize such
| a distinction, and enjoins the city from
| interfering with the business OF the COM
pany, even as to messages sent from
| one point in the State 10 another, or
/ even from one point in the city TO some
| other point therein.
Because there was never any contract
between the complainant company and
| the Western Union Telegraph Company,
| which made the telephone business or
| the complainant company, or any part
| Of ii. interstate commerce.
| Because If there ever was any such
| contract, it terminated on the LIST day
| OF November, 1896.
| That even II there now existed any
| such contract which made any of the
messages be of the nature Of interstate
| commerce. yet the city should not have
| been enjoined from interfering with the
business of the company rs to messages
sent from one point of the State to an
other, or from point in said city to
| some other point therein.
Because the decree gives the COM
! plainant the unrestricted right TO erect
\ poles anywhere in the city without be-
! ing subject TO the ordinance of Septem-
| Der TO- 1895.
The case occupied the attention Of the
| court during the entire morning and
| afternoon sessions. 1t was argued by
| Mr.. Meredith for the city, while Mr.
| George II. Fearsons, and Messrs. Stiles
| & Holiday appeared for the Bell Com
pany.
OTHER CASES HEARD.
Cause No. 24i-Joseph Buery. Mill
| Creek Coal and Coke Company. appel
| lants, VS. Fidelity Insurance, Trust and
| Safe Deposit Company, Robert f.. Tod.
| ct al, appellees. Appeal from the Cir
| suit Court, Western District of Virginia.
| On motion of appellees, the appeal is
dismissed with costs.
The following gentlemen were admit
ted as attorneys and counsellors Of the
court. after taking and subscribing the
usual oath: William Corndon Robertson,
| Roanoke. Va. and Hill Carter, of Rich
| mond Va. Court adjourned until this
morning at 10 o'clock.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.
Judge Hughes, sitting in the United
States Circuit Court yesterday, heard ar
| gument on the demurrer filed in the case
| of the Lynchburg Banks VS. State Audi
tor Morton Marye Mr. Blackford, OF
Lynchburg, and associates represented
the banks, and Attorney-General Scott
| the Auditor. This is an injunction pro-
| ceeding in which the banks are resisting
| the payment of back taxes assessed by
the State against The shareholders of the
banks. The argument occupied nearly
the entire day.
Judge Nathan Goff heard argument or
the demurrer filed in the case of Charles
| Gring VS.. the Albemarle and Chesa
| peake Canal Company. Mr.. Gring Is q
steamboat man, carrying on q traffic be-
tween Norfolk and other points on thu
Albemarle and Chesapeake canal. H'
sued out an injunction against The com
pany, charging that they had discrimi
mated against him in their charges anc
thereby restricted and prevented his
business. The case was fully argued