The evening times., 1898-02-08

The Hotel Fredonia telephone case.
Danenhewer against the Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company, was
decided today by Judge Cox, and is viz
tually a complete victory for the COM
pany. Ii is adjudged that the guests
of a hotel have not the right to use
the hotel telephone for their private
business without paying for it to the
company, and that If the phone is
used Tor hotel business by the guests a
clerk of the house must use it, and not
the guests.
A hotel telephone is not different
from a private phone i'm SO far that it
may be used only for the special bust
ness Of the house, ana not by outsiders
who do not pay. As long as Mr.. Dan
enhoWer uses this instrument in this
way only. the court enjoins the COM
pany from taking il out Of the hotel
Mr. William w. Danenhower filed his
bin against the hotel company several
days ago. asking that it be enjoined
from removing the telephone in the
Hotel Fredonia. of which he is pro-
prietor. ana that he be allowed to use it
as he saw fit for his guests and for
his private purposes. lie stated that
The company had told him such use
was a violation Of contract and that
if the phone was used in any way eN-
Cept for his OWN private purposes 1t
would be removed Later, he said. the
company set a day for the removal Of
the instrument. He brought his suit
To prevent this.
Judge Cox granted a temporary in
4
proceeded into the immediate consider
alton of the case. IL has been argued
at length for several days by Judge
JeTe Wilson fer the company, and Mr.
T. II. Thomas for Mr. Danenhower.
Judge Cox said in part. The tele-
phone company is obliged to maintain
an expensive plant, ana IS entitled 10
charge for its services. and, / presume
To charge for every message sent All
that the Law requires Of the company -
that il shall not discriminate between
it's patrons. 1t must serve all its GUS
TONERS alike on equal terms"
The court held that any contracts
which former proprletorS Of the hotei
Nigh thaVe had with the company were
immaterial as far as Mr. DanenhoWer =
contract is concerned. This contract
entered into and signed and made bind
ing i'm every possible way when Mr.
the law of this case.
Judge Cox called attention to the
explicit terms" Of the contract fOr
Subscribers use only" and said that
any larger use would violate the con-
tract and give the company the right
10 remove the instrument
When a subscriber allows others to
use his instrument the court held
three parties are injured. viz: the Tel
my n Nsal nm
pany and the other subscrib-
crs. The time of a telephone Up-
orator is taken up to send messages
that are not paid for. The Bell Com
pany receives d royalty On the bust
ness of the Telephone Company ana
thus becomes a loser also Every man
wEo uses -anotIfer's instrument might
himself become q subscriber, If he
Were not allowed TO use II.
The third class Interested are the
paving customers Of the COMPANY
They pay for prompt service. When
they ring up and find the line occu-
pied by some one who does not pay
they are to this extent injured. much
or little as the case may be. Judge
Cox said that he had a telephone in
his own house and had had this
trouble himself
As to the contention Of Mr. Thomas
that any guest of the Fredonia is en-
titled to use its phone for any purpose
and that such use must he considered
the business of the hotel" the court
held that il could not stand. The
guests of hotel do not expect to send
kilograms or employ messengers. or
use carriages free. and The use Of the
telephone must be considered to be no
different from any of these matters.
Under the head Of legitimate hotel
business may be included inquiries for
guests baggage and other similar mes
sages Inquiries for theater tickets or
flowers or talks with the guests Con-
gTessmen would not be hotel business
The line between these two might in
some cases be hard to draw The Ere
donia must decide for itself as to this
with the concurrence If the COMPANY
The guests. personally have no right
even to use the phone. A clerk of the
house must ask after their baggage
FOR them.
Judge Cox concluded his decision
with the opinion that he could not see
that Mr.. Danenhower had been dis
eliminated against or treated differ
entity from other subscribers.