The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-03-21
THREE COURT OPINIONS
Are Against the Lace Curtain and
the Postal Telegraph Companies.

An opinion in the case of Creighton
e. Birch VS.. the Scranton Lace Curtain
Manufacturing company was handed
down in court Saturday morning, and
another in the case of r. A. Blythe
against the same company. Another
case disposed of-and one in which
much local interest has been mani
fested-was that involving the validity
of the borough of Taylor's pole tax
In the case OF Creighton & Birch,
court declared that the judgment was
legal and discharged the rule to open
judgment Application was made in
behalf of the stockholders, Creighton
& Birch, commission men in New York
city, to open judgment on bond given
to secure advances that they made on
goods The defendants claimed that as
Creighton was stockholder and direc-
tor any preference in his favor was
unlawful. Attorneys Vosburg & Daw-
son represented the defendants, and G.
II. Welles the plaintiff.
In the application of r. A. Blythe
against the company for rule to dis
solve judgment attachment on the
ground that there was fraud on the
part Of the company, the court held
that as the debt to Blythe was not due
attachment could not be sustained, and
that the evidence was insufficient to
show fraud. Both cases will be APP
pealed to the Supreme court.
Judge Archibald overruled the eXcep-
tions to the report of /. II. Burns, ref
cree, in the case of Taylor borough
against the Postal Telegraph company.
The opinion contained the following:
The ordinance in question does not
show as clearly as it might that the So
called annual license fees imposed by 1t
are for the purpose of defraying the eX
pense of inspecting the poles and wires of
the several telephone, telegraph and cleo
trio railway companies; but this
may be fairly inferred from tho connec-
ton. The section which imposes the fee
Immediately follows others which direct
that such inspection shall be made and
how the correction of defects found by it
shall be enforced. The only reasonable
conclusion from this is that all the sec
tions hang together In this view
the ordinance is clearly in the power of
the borough to enact. Whatever views,
however. we might have upon the sub
ject must yieId to the case of McKees-
port VS.. Railway Co., Superior Court
Rep. 2i2. The license fee or tax there en-
forced was imposed by an ordinance
which is bald of any suggestion as to its
purpose and simply levies the tax with
out any further why or wherefore. But
the court supplying the purpose from the
duty of the municipality to make inspec-
ton sustains the ordinance as a proper
police regulation on that sole ground
THE introduction and construction of
telegraph, telephone, electric light, cleo
trio power and street car lines" says
Willard, =, through, over and upon city
streets, the erection of poles, and string
ing wires thereon. charged with danger
GUS agencies as motive power call for the
exercise of more than ordinary care not
only in the erection of poles and proper
adjustment of the wires but in the main
tenanco and repair of the same, and a
vigilant and constant inspection, and ev-
cry municipality owes the duty of rigid
inspection to it's citizens. In the perform
ance of this duty tho proper authorities
Of the city of McKeesport had a right to
pass the ordinance above quoted, and
neglect on their part to have done so
would have been neglect of public duty"
1t is further to be noted that this de-
Cision also sustains the power to pass
such an ordinance as that under discus
sion. This was the question in that case.
us it Is here, but it was declared that
'thc right to pass the ordinance as a po-
| lice regulation is too well settled to admit
of discussion" The only differ
enco between the two cases is that there
il was a city ordinance and here it Is
the ordinance of a borough, but this, in
effect, is no difference at all. The
exceptions are overruled and the report
of the referee is confirmed.