The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-05-24
JOINING OF THE
ISSUES IN THE
GAS RATE CASE
William B. Hooper
Files His Answer.
REFUSES TO PAY THE DEMAND
ALLEGES THAT THE NEW RATE
Is THE LEGAL ONE.
REFUSES TO PAY THE DEMAND
ALLEGES THAT THE NEW RATE
Is THE LEGAL ONE.
Other Points Are Brought Out in the
Pleadings That Will Result in
Thorough Trial Of the
Suit.

Issues have been Joined in tho action Of
the San Francisco Gas and Electric Com
pany against William 3. Hooper, pro-
prietor of the Occidental Hotel, to re-
cover s631 40 alleged to be due for gas
consumed during the month of April at
the rate Of 81 rs q thousand feet. An an
swer was filed yesterday by Mr.. Hooper
in which he denies owing the company
the amount claimed, the defendant set
ting forth the 81 10 a thousand rate, re-
Gently adopted by the Supervisors for the
ensuing fiscal year, as the proper charge,
and, after bringing in various collateral
matters, which will result in an adjudi-
cation of the case to the satisfaction Of
all concerned, prays to be dismissed with
his costs.
The answer reads:
For a first and separate defense, defendant
denies that tho gas mentioned in the COM
plant was furnished supplied. sold or delivered
thousand cubic feet, at any greater rate or
more than 81 10 per one thousand cubic feet,
and denies ,b that af @ % or an TO px OF
amount greater than 81 10 per one thousand
cubic feet, to wit, the aggregate sum of 1898 IS,
between plaintiff and defendant at all
For a second and separate defense defendant
/ That the gas mentioned in the complaint
was illuminating gas of the standard quality
and illuminating power of not more than seven
teen candles, and was furnished by plaintiff
t. in the city da and Of COUNTY An9 Of s San
in the complaint and at all times on and since
March 4. 1873, there was not and there still
by the municipality, the city and county OF
San Francisco, for supplying the said munich
said times last mentioned the plaintiff and its
predecessors in interest was and were and has
been and have been and plaintiff stu is a
the laws of the State of California for supply
ing said municipality, and the inhabitants
thereof with artificial light and for the pur-
pose Of supplying gas for the use Of said city
and county OF San Francisco and Its inhab-
itants; and during all of said last mentioned
times, under the direction Of the Superintend-
ent of Streets Of said city and county of San
scribed by the said municipality and by the
Board Of Supervisors and legislative authority
thereof the plaintiff or its predecessors in in
terest had had and used and during all the
same times has and have had and used and
plaintiff still has and uses the privilege OF
said municipality, and Of laying down pipes
and conduits therein. and connections there
or is necessary for introducing into and supply
ing said city and county and its Inhabitants
w5h f and ,e isF tes the pg.s gh
mains of said plaintiff have been and still are
laid down in the streets and hlghways OF said
pose of supplying gas for the use of said city
and the inhabitants thereof.
Ill That during all the times last mentioned
the said city and county of San Francisco
has been and still is city having population
OF more than 100 900 inhabitants and that on
April 8. 1899. the Board OF Supervisors Of said
city and county of San Francisco duly made
n resolution and determination whereby said
board determined and fixed the standard quail
tty and Illuminating power of gas to be fur
nished by any company or corporation whose
pipes mains were then should thereafter
be laid down In the streets or highways OF
such city for the purpose Of supplying gas for
the use OF such city and for the inhabitants
thereof at seventeen candles, and whereby It
determined and fixed and established the maxi
mum rate and price for each 1000 cubic feet
Of such gas TO be charged therefor by any such
company or corporation at 81 10 per 1000 cubic
feet, and no more
". That the said resolution OF the Board of
Supervisors was in full force and effect dur
ing all times when the gas alleged in the COM
plant to have been furnished, supplied sold
and delivered to defendant was furnished
supplied. sold and delivered to defendant
Whereof defendant demands Judgment that
he be hence dismissed with his costs of suit
It is plain that all questions upon which
the right of the company to still demand
the old rate, Of 81 Is a thousand feet Is
based will be determined through the
points brought up in this answer.