The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-02-13
THE RIGHT TO USE 4 PHONE
Justice Cox's Decision In the Danenhauer Ease
In MnnhIngtOn.

In Washington.
The case OF Danenhauer against the Chesa-
peake and Potomac Telephone Company, de-
cided on Wednesday by Associate Justice Cox
In the Supreme Court of the District Of Column
bia, is Of interest to all subscribers of telephone
companies. 1t appears that Danenhauer is the
proprietor of the Hotel Fredonia in Washington.
As such. he was a subscriber of the Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company. The COM
pany placed one OF its instruments in the hotel.
Danenhauer permitted patrons of the hotel to
use the telephone free of charge. The company
sought to prohibit him from allowing his board.
ers to use the phone, under threat to remove
the instrument. Danenhaucr told the company
that they could not remove the phone. The
company started to do so. and Danenhauer oh
tanned a temporary injunction restraining the
company from removing the phone or interior.
ing with his service.
Justice CoX's decision was rendered after the
court had heard arguments for and against the
plaintiffs request to make the injunction per-
manent. 1t makes the injunction permanent,
but imposes certain requirements upon the
plaintiff. In the order continuing the injunction
1t is required that the telephone must be used
strictly for hotel business and for the private
business of the proprietor. 1t stipulates that
Danenhauer shall not allow the telephone to be
used for other purposes than those mentioned.
cit may be used" the order states, for the
benefit and accommodation Of boarders. such as
sending for a wagon to call for baggage. but it
such as calling for stock reports or the ordering
of theatre tickets
The order further states: THE telephone
company is obliged to maintain a special plant.
and is entitled to charge for every message sent.
All that the law requires is that the company
shall not discriminate between its patrons, but
must serve all persons on the same terms. The
explicit terms OF the contract. made between
for the subscribers use only, and on q breach OF
the terms the contract may be violated.
when the subscriber allows others o use his
telephone it is an abuse OF the time Of the tele.
phone operator. 1t Is also an infringement on
the rights of the Bell Telephone Company.
Furthermore, it Is an infringement Of the rights
of other subscribers. 1t is very annoying for a
subscriber to call for a certain number and be
told that the connection he wants Is busy. that
being due to the fact that a non'subscriber is
connection is desired.
The hotel guest is entitled to the use OF the
telephone In the hotel, but no one is entitled to
pany has an instrument in the hotel. The guest
does not have his kilograms sent free of charge.
nor does he secure the service of messengers
and the use OF carriages without pay. Why
shoult he be- allowed 70 use the telephone with
According to the Washington Star, many OF
the subscribers TO the service of the Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company are up in
arms against the company over its enforcement
OF its alleged right to prevent any but the sub
scriber from using u phone. A movement is re-
ported to be now on foot on the part of a mum.
Der OF subscribers, professional and business
men tother than hotel keepersl. to pool their in.
terests and make a test case OF the refusal OF
the company, for instance, to permit any one
but n doctor, or some one connected with his
office. using his telephone.
Recently a Washington man leased desk room
In his office to two friends. The lessor had a
telephone in his office. for which he paid an an
nual rental of $3.50. When his tenants came in.
the telephone company informed the subscriber
that the tenants would not he allowed to use his
telephone unless each paid $50 a year for the
privilege. in addition to the $3.50 which he paid.
The man told the President of the company that
his tenants would use his telephone free OF
charge. The President replied that il they did
the telephone would be taken away. The man
dared the, President to carry out his threat,
and the telephone was not moved.
The Washington folks declare that the tcle-
phone company is constantly making such
threats and carries them out only when 1t
thinks the offending subscriber is II person whom
it can, afford, to %antagonize: The statement
is made that the result of such a policy Is that
Smith. who may be an important man or n man
of some influence in Washington, permits his
telephone to DO used by anybody he pleases,
while Jones. next door. who is not SO important
a parsonage. has to conform TO the company's
demands or lose his telephone.