Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-02-07

tween his hotel and his warehouse was
forbidden unless paid for extra.
in regard to the alleged discrimination.
h. said. in the bill of complaint. no men
lion had been made that other hotels in
Ike city were allowed to use the phone
ir any other way than that permitted 10
the complainant. There was no doubt, he
said. to the right of the company to
adopt any rules in regard to its patrons
which IL may consider right and proper to
protect its interests.
Mr. Tobriner said he wished to raise the
point as TO whether.if a person hiring some
thing from another. made wider more
extensive use of that something. II should
not be considered breach of contract. Mr..
HoehltDg contended that the case did not
apply under the existing circumstances
IL should not be the right of a hotel pro-
prietor 10 furnish free telephone service to
mis- guests, Mr.. Hoehling contended. and it
was not done in any other hotel in the city.
The contract entered into between the
complainant and defendant. Mr.. Hoehling
declared. stated explicitly that by its terms
a year after 1t was entered into. with ten
days notice. the contract could be annulled.
The bill as brought by the complainant. he
said. would perpetually enjoin the COM
pany from removing the telephone. while
reserving to itself the right to break the
contract under the ten days notice at any
time.
Two Kinds of Service.
company. argued that the nature of the
service of the telephone company was of
two kinds-publlc and private. If a man
should put telephone in his place. ard al
low every one to use it, there would be no
chance for the telephone to enlarge its ia
ctiities- For the purpose of the public cor
NeDience the public pay telephones had
been started. simply TO give the public
every facility. The whole controversy. he
stated, arose from the fact that in the
Hotel Fredonia was private telephone.
which was to be used by every one who
chose 1t was suggested that a slot ma
chine be placed in the hotel. with 10 IN
tention whatever of removing the other
private instrument.
As TO the contract, he said that when
there was change OF proprie torship a new
contract bad to be made This contract
made statNd that the telephone should be
used for subscribers use only. The en-
deavor had been made he said, to enjpin
the telephone company from exercising its
rights. which were sta ted in the contract.
Not only did the complainant do this.
Judge Wilson argued. but made 1t an effort
to have the contract reformed, SO that the
guests and all others who come TO the hotel
could use the telephone.
Judge Wilson declared that the idea that
the complainant could Ike his case TO the
Court of Appeals and not the defendant
was a novel one.
Case IN Important One.
Mr.. Ddnenhower declared that the case
was a most important one. II was merely
the beginning of a movement he argued,
to force every subscriber to put in an en-
tirely new system. This was the putting in
of the slot machines. If this system were
TO be introduced, he said, every one would
be Obliged to pay for every syllable utter
ed This was merely a preliminary hear
ing. he said. and the question was of a pre-
he m inn
was able and willing TO furnish bond until
the case was finally disposed of. either with
a perpetual Injunction or otherwise.
The telephone was placed in the Free
donna Hotel eight years ago. said Mr.. To-
briner, the company knowing that il was
a hotel. TO be used as such. for purposes
connected with the business of the hotel
Two years ago, when the specific contract
was made with Mr.. Danenhower in Febru-
airy. lS6. IL was under the same conditions
The bill is simply to prevent the dissolving
or the injunction until the final disposition
OF the case. The contention is maintained
that the guests of the hotel shall have the
right TO use the phone. 1t is not meant
that outsiders-any one, in fact-can come
in and be permitted TO enjoy the privileges
of the telephone.
The trim Subscribers use only" Mr.
Tobriner declared, ambiguous in a
certain sense. 1t undoubtedly includes. he
thought. the use of the telephone by guests
OF the Fredonia Hotel.
The terms of the contract were dwelt
upon. The excuse for removing the tele-
phone. Mr.. Tobriner argued as shown by
the letters of the company, was TO place a
slot machine in the hotel. Instead of re-
Ceiving the stipulated sum for annual
rental. it was declared. when the slot ma-
chine should be located in the hotel this
amount would be increased probably dou-
bic treble. 1t was the desire of the
company. il was commended. not only in
this case. but in others, 10 throttle the
rights of subscribers to the telephone COM
pany-
Termination of Contract.
The argument was brought forward that
according 10 contract, as understood by
Mr. Tobriner the contract could not be-
terminated until the end of the years time,
when The contract ended.
According to the admission OF counsel for
defendant. Mr.. Tobriner declared, guests
bad the right 10 use a telephone in a hotel
Under some circumstances. He was able
to prove. he said, that for period of eight
y=ars the telephone company had been
aW are of the use OF its phone by the hotel.
The name of MOTEL in Philadelphia was
given, where a private telephone can be
used by guests. without extra pay. and 1t
was stated that there are restaurants in
this city where patrons are permitted to
use the telephones without pay, and this
is allowed ny a company il was declared.
which alleges there is no discrimination"
We are paying here TO this grinding
monopoly" Mr.. HCehing said double the
prices paid in other cities. In spite of this
fact. the company wishes to impose still
heavier tax upon its patrons.
Mr. Hoehling stated that the question
solely to the right of the telephone
company 10 walk into the hotel and take
out the telephone.
The ALE cation was made IN the bill coun-
sci declared. that the use of the telephone
was incOnsiderabie. and that il could he so
shown By evidence when the case was far
enough advanced.
IL Was denied by counsel for defendant
that Mr. Danenhower had been told that
he could not telephone from his hotel to his
warehouse there being a telephone in each
paid for by him.
Mr.. Tobriner made the statement that
MIR. Danenhower had two witnesses who
would testify positively that the complain
ant had been told this.
Mr. Tobriner closed the case with his ar
gument. and ii was taken under Amusement
by Judge Cox.
COMPARISON OF COST.
Claim Made by Telephone Company in
Matter of ENpense,