New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-11-29
LIGHTING COMPANIES WIN,
SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE BAY
ONNE CASE REvERSED-A FAR
REACHING OPINION

Trenton Nov q (SpeciaD-The electric lighting
companies wiz signal victory by virtue OF oe-
cislon given by Justice Van Syckel In the Court or
Errors and Appeals to-day. The Court holds tnat
municipality can without evading the law grant
to an electric light company the right TO use all It's
streets by an omnibus ordinance providing that
when the privilege of erecting poles shall be
granted the streets In which such poles are 10 DO
erected must be designated Under this decision
there is nothing TO prevent lighting company
from having a municipality pass an ordinance
designating all OF It's streets and then the company
go ahead and select the streets II desires. The
decision applies only 10 companies which furnish
public light, but nearly all the electric COM
panles OF the State OF that nature II virtually
applies to all. This decision reverses that OF ths
Supreme Court
The case at issue was the long drawn out battle
over the erection OF poles in the streets Of Bayonne
The Supreme Court held 20 be Invalid the resoiu-
lions and ordinances passed by Bayonne. and ex-
tending to the Hudson County Electric Company
the right TO place poles the property OF Samuel
!. Myers and others along Thirty-third-st and
Avenue for the purpose OF supplying electricity
TO some OF the city's lights. and also authorizing
the company 10 all public roads and streets Tor
for public as well as private uses in the city The
Supreme Court was OF the opinion that the munich.
designating the streets that ii should use hrst
whereas that power by the statute was vested ony
that the city had a right TO designate "a the
streets" which is held to be equivalent TO tho
designation or each and every street by name
In the hght the electric company was represented
by Senator-eect Thomas y. McCarter, Jr., OF Essex
County, and Messrs. Riker d Riker also OF Essex
County. Messrs. Corbin G. Corbn and DE Wiz
Van Buskirk represented the other side
The contest has been watched with great interest,
and when the Supreme Court decided against tho
municipality and the electric company the property
owners who opposed the ordnance regarded the
victory decisive. The Court OF Errors. however.
takes altogether different view from the SUI
preme Court, and holds In favor OF the company.
The syllabus OF the opinion is as follows
Public lighting only is provided FOR by the act OF
May 90 1894 and Bayonne may under that act,
without the consent OF the abuttng land owners or
previous designation OF streets use the streets and
erect poles, poles TO be erected. for public
lighting. The or 1854. 1898 and 1895 apply to
private lighting companies which desire 10 use
streets for private lighting, heat and power pur-
poses. and require the consent OF abutting land
owners and the designation OF streets by the city
before poles be erected.
The purpose for which the designation OF streets
by the city is required is TO prevent the use Of any
street without the consent or the city and that OBJ
ject is attained by general designation OF all
streets. The permission OF the city is pre-
requisite 10 the right OF the company 10 enter the
streets. and the designation is for the purpose Of
establishing what streets the company may use,
and not what they must occupy.