Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-02-07
Hearing Today Before Justice Cox Of
District Supreme Court.
COUNSEL DISCUSS THE CONTRACT
Matter Taken Under Amusement
by the Court.
HOTEL FREDONIA CASE

y
peake and Potomac Telephone Company
were continued today in Equity Court No.
/. Mr.. f. II. Thomas of counsel for the
complainant opened the discussion this
morning.
Mr.. Thomas said in the beginning that the
question to be considered was not one of
compensation, but who shall say whether
the hotel proprietor is using the telephone
in his legitimate business or not.
The company, Mr. Thomas said. did not
consider the question OF compensation. Ii
seemed to segregatc the hotel business and
tell Mr.. Danenhower that it would take out
the telephone which ne had and put I'm a
slot machine. IL had no right, he argued
to make a distinction in this case. II had
no right TO discriminate. no matter whether
or not there was a stipulation in the con-
tract TO that effect, SO far as the hotel
guests We're concerned.
Attorney Tobrner remarked that as the
telephone had been used for eight years
he thought an Interpretation to the con-
tract had been surely made by this Mr.
Thomas declared it had been stated when
the hotel was bought by the complainant,
that the good viii was thought To include
the lease of the telephone. Attention was
called to the law under which the company
operates, as interpreted in Maryland. which
states that the service shall be given with
impartiality 10 all.
4 Maryland Precedent.
Mr.. Thomas cited a case, similar 10 the
one being argued, which had been decided
in Maryland, where a telephone had been
used under much the same conditions and
no specification had been made as to the
amount of business or the character Of
business to be carried on over the line, I'm
which there had been a decision against
the company. Numerous cases were cited
by Mr.. Thomas of decisions adverse to
telephone companies, where il had been
decided that the business for which con-
tracts had been made with the companies
must be carried Oh with strict impartiality
and that under the law by which the COM
pany conducted its operations IL had no
right to discriminate in any respect against
ANY one patron or subscriber. This dis
elimination, the attorney stated. had been
applied to Mr.. Danenhower. against whom
discrimination had been cleariy made
The point was made as 10 what consti-
tuted the hotel business in its strict sense.
Mr. Tobriner thought this could be decided
much better by the proprietor of the hotel
than by the telephone company. lie wns
much better fitted, ii was oontended. to
say whether the use of the Instrument by
a guest was to the benefit of The hotel. 1t
was not the mere physical use of a tele-
phone by guest. ii was declared which
was to be considered but the message
transmitted by him. For instance, 1t
might be necessary to summon a cab or
apply for other service. No matter what
II should be. the measure of service to
which the hotel proprietor or his guests,
1t was stated, are restricted. should not be
judged by the telephone company, nor was
1t capable Of doing so.
Message Concerning the Sick.
Il kr ow of case" Mr.. Thomas said,
where enc druggist telephoned 10 a
brother druggist as to the condition Of a
relative who was sick. Both had their own
phones in their places of business The
conversation was interrupted by the tcle-
phone operator, who said that the CONVEX
sation was not ole connected with the
drug business and therefore il should be
paid for.
why. If 1 had a telephone in my Office.
according to the orders of the telephone
company, lawyer who wished TO come
into my office and send message to some
where could not be permitted to DO this,
though paid for the telephone and he had
my permission to do If l wished TO
telephone for theater tickets | could not
do so without paying extra for the priv
ilege.
Considering the hotel business the pro-
prietor alone can decide 10 what will
enlarge his business and should De allowed
to decide himself IS to how this snail he
done. II he thinks that the use of his
phone by a guest may serve his interests
better he should he allowed to assume the
privilege of permitting the of his in
strument without being prevented by The
company"
1t was maintained by Mr.. Thomas that
the placing of a telephone in a hotel was
an invitation on the Fart of the company
for the use Of it. 1t could certainly be
used. ne said. for calling messengers.
Attention was called especially to the
fact thar up to November last. for period
OF about eight years, no effort had been
made by the company TO. prevent the use
of the telephone in the hotel. For the first
time there was discrimination against the
hotel.
Mr. Danenhower the complainant de,
cared. had two places of business. one at
the hotel and another at his warehouse.
Complainant was told that II he had to
send message from his hotel to his ware
house he should act in the matter as any
outsider-pay extra for sending the mes
sage from one to the other.
Case of a Gas Company.
case in New York city was cited by
Mr.. Thomas, in which an injunction was
Issued against gas company. con-
sumner complained that his gas meter was
not working properly and that he refused
to pay the bill. The company wished TO
remove the meter, but an injunction to
prevent the carrying out of the wish of the
company in this respect, until the matter
was finally decided, was issued by the
court.
In concluding his argument, Mr.. Thomas
maintained that the contract had been
Interpreted TO mean tnal guests nave q
right to use the telephone in question.
The paragraph in the contract. ''the sub
sc ribers use only" it was declared, means
any use required I'm the business of the
complainant, including the use of the
'Ihone by guests, and that the true In
depreciation of the contract cannot be ad-
judged by the company. but only by the
court.
Irrespective OF contract. IL was declared,
the law itself gives complainant right
to this telephone, and any unreasonable
restriction in the contract Is void. Finally.
it was declared, to require complainant to
use public telephone. or pay so much per
message, so long the company main
tains general telephone service. is an
unfair discrimination against complainant.
and a denial of his right to have what the
company is furnishing to thousands OF
other citizens.
The Other side.
In his argument Mr.. Hoehling, for tho
telephone company. stated that IL. prior
to the given date, November 1. 1897, the
telephone in the hotel had been used by
guests Of the hotel. It was without the
knowledge OF the company. Further. he
stated. that II was denied that the use
hY rou1nfafnauf of ha fnlo h.