Evening star., 1898-07-14
Suits Entered to Test Validity of
New Law.
APPLICATIONS FOR INJUNCTION
Manning & Co. and o. G. Staples
the CompIainants.
IN THE EQUITY COURT

The contest over the law enacted at the
to be charged by the Chesapeake and Po-
tomac Telephone Company for the use Of
telephones took definite shape today by
the filing Of two suits. In both cases the
complainants are members of the Tele-
phone Subscribers Association. and are
represented in these proceedings by Birney
| & Woodard and ]. ]. Hemphill, attorneys
for the association.
One suit prays for an injunction, and is
brought by ]. F. Manning Co, telephone
subscribers whose contract has expired
and who gave the company the required
| notice of ten days that they would not re-
| new the contract. Subsequently a tender
| was made to the telephone company OF the
81 arter's rent according to the rates fixed
in the new law. but the payment was re-
fused by the company. Now Manning 6,
Co. come before the court and ask that the
telephone company be restrained from re-
| moving the telephone from their premises
and depriving them Of the service.
The other suit is filed on behalf of Mr.
Q. G. Staples. proprietor Of the Riggs Will
lard's and National hotels. Mr.. Staples is
rot now telephone subscriber. He. how
ever, wishes service for his hotels, and
rendered the telephone company payment
OF the first quarters rent for three tnstru-
| ments according to the rates fixed by the
new law. AS the company declines to fur
n.sh the service at such rates. Mr.. Staples
applies to the court for mandamus to
| compel them to comply with the law.
Similar in Terms.
Both bills are alike In the subject matter
The one filed In behalf of J. F. Manning
& Co. recites that the complainants arc
citizens of the United States, residents of
the District, and the copartners. James F.
Manning and Harry E. Rupprecht, are
doing business under the firm name of j.
F. Manning & Co. The bill further recites
| that they bring this suit in their own right
The defendant, 1t is stated. is the Chesa-
peake and Potomac Telephone Company, q
corporation organized under the laws of
the state Of New York, having its princi-
pal place Of business In this city, and that
1t is sued in Its own right.
After stating that the telephone company
Is In the business of furnishing telephone
exchange service in the District and Mary
land to persons who contract to accept
ard pay for the same, the bill recites that
for the preservation of its business the tel
ephone company, with the assent of Con-
gress and the District Commissioners
maintains underground and overhead wires
In and over the streets of the city, and for
certain hire allows messages to be sent
over its wires by subscribers to its SER
vice. 1t is further stated that the tele-
phone company maintains a centra, office
or exchange. and it is averred tina. the
telephone company is A common carrier of
telephone messages and is bound in law
TO furnish set up and maintain telephones
in the premises of all persons in Washing
ton who may request the same anG pay
the lawful charges thereon (such premises
being upon or near to the lines of service
wire established by the company. and to
furnish such persons, their families. SER
wants. agents and employees connection
thu ough the telephone exchange with o:ter
telephones, and to suffer and permit them
to send and receive messages over the lines
of wire of the company.
The bill then recites the contract made
by Manning & Co., July /, 1897, with the
telephone company for telephone exchange
service, which was to continue until July
l, 1898, and thereafter until such agree
ment should be terminated by ten days
notice in writing given by either party. A
certain price was fixed in the contract to be
paid by the subscriber and in accordance
with the contract, 1t is stated, a service
was furnished according to the true intent
and meaning Of the agreement. 1t is fur
ther stated that Manning & Co. have per-
formed their part Of the agreement.
The I'd Of July instant, the bill adds Man
ming & Co. gave notice in writing to the de-
fendant, that they desired to terminate the
contra ct, ten days after receipt of the no
tice by the company, and that Manning &
Co. believe the notice was duly received by
the company onsthe 4th of July, 1893.