The San Francisco call., 1897-09-04
ROASTED BY
THE JUSTICE
Judge Temple Scores Ash
worth and the Su-
pervisors.
Tried to Drive the Mutual
Electric Light Company Out
of the Field.
The Right of the Law Is Not Al
ways the Right of Justice
and Equity.

One OF the most caustic decisions handed
down in the Supreme Court was that by
Justice Temple in the case OF tue Mutual
Electric Light Company against Thomas
then Ashworth, uperintendento of Streets.
This company and the Edison Electric
Lignt and Power Company are rivals for
the business of their lines in this City.
Several months ago the former under
took to place lot of poles on the ide-
walk of the block bounded by Market
street, Grant avenue and Geary street, but
the workmen were stopped by the en-
pioyes OF the Street Department on the
ground that no permit had been granted
10 do SO. Under the ordinance the Super
intendent has the right to grant or refuse
a permit. The managers OF the aggrieved
com pany did all IN their power to secure
the much desired permit, but to no pur-
pose.
The refusal itself was bad enough. but
what made matters the more aggravating
was the fact that The rival concern, the
Edison, was rapidly placing its posts. in
the very places that the Mutual had been
denied the privilege of occupying. OF
course the only thing 10 do was TO appe al
to the law, and very little satisfaction was
obtained there. The matter came up in
an appeal for an injunction to restrain
Mr.. Ashworth from interfering with, OBJ
structing and prohibiting the plain III
from erecting posts and making cOnnec-
tions with its supply wires and furnishing
its customers with electric light. Also TO
restrain the defendant from arresting the
employees OF the plaintiff while they were
placing the pos for the wires.
P b. Cornwall and w. Il. Summer
hayes, of the Mutual, made affidavit that
the purpose OF the defendant wa TO drive
the Mutual out of the field and give the
business 10 the Edison Company. Also
that Mr.. Ashworth was stockholder in
the Edison, and that there were certain
were also interested in hamIering the
Mutual.
Ashworths defense was that under the
law he and the Supervisors had the right
to act as they did, and the lower court
refused to grant the Mutual any rehef in
the shape of an injunction, so the case
was taken 10 the Supreme Court on an a D.
peal. There, too, no relief could be ob-
tanned, for Justice Temple, who rendered
the decision, also held strictly to the letter
oil the law. However. the Justice did not
lose a good opportunity TO give the mu-
nlclpai officers a caustic dressing down,
for in his remarks he said:
In fact the uncontradioted affidavits show
plainly thatit is deliberate attempt to drive
one corporation out OF the field in the interest
OF another by the oppressive and unlawful use
OF official power. Counsel do not attem pit to
justify the action of the Board of Supervis
but simply insist that without the official
PERMIT the plaintiff has no right to set posts
on the sidewalk ana that its servants may
properly be arrested for so doing. In the
meantime, however, the privileges Are freely
granted 10 the rival company, whose posts
may he seen on any block i'll the business por-
ton OF the City. 9 1t is the granting or
refusing Of q permit which determines
whether the post constitutes a nuisance or
not The partisans Of the Edison Light and
Power Company in the Board OF Supervisors
can refuse to grant the permit to one and
grant it 10 the other.
Therefore post when erected by one is a
nuisance when it would not be if erected by
another. An ordinance which would dis
criminate would be void and the plaintiff con-
tends that the board cannot o i'll other modes
what it cannot. do by ordinance. That dis
elimination is unlawful, and therefore the
board and the Superintendent act illegally
when they order the arrest of plaintiffs en-
ployes for doing hat which is freely permitted
10 a rival and favored company.
But the ordinance which requires special
permission to be obtained before the streets
can be obsIrucied is a reasonable one,
In the use OF this discretion, which must exist
somewhere, great injustice may be done by
officials who are corrupt or partial, and have
no doubt that remedy may be obtained in
The courts. p
plaintiff when it ought to be gran ted, and I'M
der such circumstances as 1t is freely granted
to a favored corporation.
The order is affirmed.