The San Francisco call., 1899-02-26
Mutual Electric Light
Company Wins.
BESTS ITS COMPETITOR
MAY ERECT POLES TO LIGHT
THE CITY'S STREETS.
Supervisors Compelled to Grant the
Plaintiff All Privileges Granted
the San Fran cisco Gas and
Electric Company.

The San Francisco Gas and Electric
Company may not enjoy privileges de-
MED other companies. or in other words.
al companies are entitled to the same
privileges enjoyed by that corporation
This was decided yesterday afternoon by
Judge SeaweiI in the action Instituted by
the Mutual Electric Light Company
against Mayor PheIan and members OF
the Board OF Supervisors for peremp-
tory writ OF mandate 10 compel the de-
fendaEts 20 permit plaintiff 10 erect poles
within the same limits in which the San
Francisco Company. up 70 the issuance
Of the writ. held monopoly. This mo-
nopoIy is now at an end
The suit decided yesterday by Judge
Seawei resulted from the awarding by
the last Board Of Supervisors TO the San
Francisco Gas and Electric Company the
contract for lighting the public streets.
Suit was He'd by " P. Suumerhayes,
representing the Mutual Electric Light
Company TO annuI the contract. The
company enjoyed immunity from compe-
OF the supervisors prohibiting other
companies from erecting poles within GER
tain specified limits
Judge Se4Weu held on demurrer that no
legal contract could be awarded the San
Francisco Company unless all COM
panIes were allowed the same privileges
ole owing 10 the action ef the Supervt-
sors-
The case again came up yesterday on an
issue or fact raised in the answer fled BY
City and County Attorney Lane IL being
conteEded IN the answer that the plaintiff
corporation did not have financial back
ing sufficient 10 admit II entering the
ranks Of competitors P 3 Cornwall
president OF the company. was called 20
the stand 10 refUre this statement Mr..
Cornwall said that the five directors OF
the company represented 4 capital OF
800 Qoo $50, an amount in itself sufficient
10 guarantee the financial stability Of the
f1rFr7- anu LIa Err-- -Ee-
company had expended up 10 the present
tine 800. $50 IN DerfeCLiug its plant Called
upon 10 state the difference in expense in
laying underground wires and overhead
Mr.. Cornwall gave as an example the fact
that eleven men can string mile Of
overhead wire il four days, while IL would
take the same force three weeks 10 lay
z mile underground Mr. SUmmerhayeS
was then called and testified that his
company was now IN position 10 COM
pete throughout the entire district west
Of Lzrkiu street, and intended 10 spend
sufficient capital in enlargIuS the plant
10 enable II 70 compete over the entire
city
This ended the morning session At
clock the case was again taken Up.
Attorney John H burst appeared before
the court, and read an affidavit, signed by
himself, in which he asked that q con-
CfnUance be granted that he, as special
counsel for Supervisor Phelps, might
file an amended answer 10 the complaint
burst conteuded that the answer fled by
the City and County Attorney was not
q QGEElSS 10 tie 1LElGEis anu LAA-L g. q
proper defense existed ne asked the right
for time in which 10 file the amended
answer and produce witnesses 70 support
such answer The court refused 10 allow
Mr. Phelps counsel further time, as
Mr. Phelps represented only g twelfth of
the board and his separate answer did
not bind the rest Of the board Attorneys
william Wood and N NJ Estee. repre-
sentfng the plaintiff. and City and Coun-
u Attorney Lane waived the right OF
eumeus and the court ordered per-
ernptory writ Of mandate 70 issue as
rlrayafi for.