The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-02-24
Tacoma Bureau Of the post-rntelhgencer.
Ii23 Pacific Avenue.

Tacoma Bureau Of the post-rntelfgencer.
1i23 Pacific Avenue.
TACOMA. Feb. 3-Special-TAe cutting
OF the wires OF the Commercial Electric
Light & Power Company the night or
July 70 and u. 1896, and the great excite
ment that was caused IN the city at that
time. was again brought 20 light this az
ternoon by the Commercial company Nh
ing with the clerk OF the superior court
two suits for damages against the city for
the destruction Of their property at that
time: tire suits sggregating Sl,57a.is.
TIE first suit Is against the city Of Taco
ma, and prays for Judgment OF ss41-S for
copper wire that was damaged and de-
stroves by the city at the time ex-Mayor
Fawcett made his raid. In its. complaint
the company allege that az the time the
raid was made Il had license and au-
thority 10 string and maintain system
of copper wires along the streets and al
ieys OF the city Of Tacoma. and that the
nights OF July 10 and IL \. V. FawceSt,
claiming and assuming TO act az the may
or OF the city OF Tacoma, directed and
caused a number OF the employees Of the
city to tear down. mutilate. destroy and
carry away a large quantity OF copper
wire which the company had stretched
on poles in the streets and alleys In the
city.
The next case is against the city. a. V.
II
NJ Fawcett. George p. Monty. W. p.
Dickson. A C. Brokaw, L. Wolff and
John w. Want. This case is for dam
ages which the company claims TO have
sustained in its business by the action OF
the city, under the direction or Mayor
Fawcett. in tearing down and destroying
their wires. and by reason of the re-
straining order and temporary Injunction
that was placed upon them last July,
and which kept them from furnishing
their customers with any lights what
ever for period Of four and two-third
months. The company claim that their
customers had for long time prior 10
July IL. 1896 paid TO them for their cleo
tric lights s36l6s a month. and would
have continued to have taken their lights
and pay the same price had the company
been able to have replaced their wires.
The company alleges that the loss to
them during the time this injunction was
IN effect was si.60s.sS, and that on De-
cember 1, 1896 when they were again
able to furnish electric lights they found
that their former customers had made
connection with the electric light plant
OF the city ana refused to diseonnect
their premises from the city's wires and
reconnect with the company's plant, and
these customers were wholly lost. The
complaint alleges that there We're thirty
nine OF these customers who had former
iy used 495 of the company's lights and
paid 10 them the sum OF sl5Ls5 a month
therefor. For this the company claim
they have been damaged in all in the
sum OF si,sl9so.
The company also alleges that during
August. September and October Il has
been able 70 largely increase it's business
OF selling electric light by the acquisition
of new customers. BY reason of the long
nights OF the fan season. IL is alleged
that these new customers usually become
that these new customers usually became
permanent and paid TO It not less than
500 a month for lights. For the loss OF
this perqGisite damages IN the sum OF
81. DO WAS asked.
At the time this restraining order and
temporary Injunction was issued by the
superior court, July II. 1896. the complaint
alleges that the city. as principal and A.
V. Fawcett. y. g. Smith and John Hol-
gate as sureties. executed and delivered
TO the company an injunction bond in the
sum of sle9 td pay all damages which the
company might sustain by reason of the
issuance OF the restraining order, and that
upon the hearing OF the order 10 show
cause why temporary Injunction should
not issue the court denied the companys
petition 10 set aside the restraining order,
and upon motion OF the city. July Is. lsea,
the court made an order directing the
company TO refrain from the acts sought
10 be restrained during the tendency OF
the action and continued the restraining
order In foroa until the final decision OF
the case. and required the city 10 file an
Injunction bond IN the sum OF 5000
J4iy Is. 1895 the company alleges that
the city. as principal, and r. NJ. Fawcett.
George b. Monty W. p. Dickson. A. c.
Brokaw /. W0if and J. ". Want. as
surAties delivered TO the company their
injunction bond I'm the cause. whereby
they bound and obligated themselves in
the penal sum OF $500 to pay the COM
pany any damages which IL might sus-
tain by reason or the issuance o. the tenn
porkry injunction
That after this bond vas fled the city
appealed 70 the supreme court, which.
November a 1896. reversed the order OF
the superior court and directed Il 20 va
catb its order ard dismiss the action And
q Judgment in favor OF the company for
the dismissal and its costs wax entered
So 4ae superior court February !. 1897. In
It's prayer the company demands judgment
on this bond in the sUna OF s. Geo claim
ing that IL was damaged 70 that amount
or more bv reason OF the continuance OF
the restraining order This. With al OF
the other damages alleged III the COM
ulaint. makes the fuil amount OF SO 20 s.,
wh5ch fhe sut IS started for Stiles &
steFens appear as attorneys for the Com
--,-A-ss 3 ~ar-s.apu