The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-01-02
THE CIT WINS I'''|'
ITS BIG SUIT
Judge Golf Decides Agaiats the Bell
Company.
70 DISSOLVE The INJUNCTION.
xr,ta, May DC Taken to Court Of Ap.
pca,s Tho Bel, Has no Rights
Under state Laws or Under
s.,e City Ordinances,
udre Golf Decides Againts the Bell
70 DISSOLVE The INJUNCTION.
xrp,a, May DC Taken to Court of Ap-

sl,e City Ordinances.
Judge Con has decided that the South
orn Bell Telephone and Telegraph Com
many has no rights ander the laws Of
Virginia and the Ordinances of the City
OF Richmond.
He has handed down his opinion In
which The states that he will issue a de-
cree. dism:ssins the Eel CompanT's b'n
and dissolve the injunction restraining
The CITY Council from interfering with
the poles and wires OF the Bell.
CAN TAKE APPEAL.
This action OF Judge Con does mol
necessarily end the litigation. The Ben
t-ouipnny can appeal from his 1uosihei'l
10 the United States Circuit Soufl OF
appcals: 1hnt IS. j; apply 10 1ha'
tribunal to pass upon Inc questio"'
citied by Judge Gon. ~,
In the event OF appeal. Judge Con VIII
not sit ,.,,e.
civ Attorney Pollard Will request Chiei
J,,sticc Fuller to preside over the Court.
Circuit Judge Simonton and one Oh We
District Judges will sit with MN.
i: is not known what course me beii
lCnnlCAny
will of course have TO confer Win .'ie
,,ead Office first. Judge Colts opinion 'iia
not reach here until yesterday morning
and COPIES of 1t were promptly 1urnished
counsel in tho case
FOLLOWING is the full text OF the opiii-
ion:
WHAT JUDGE 9GOFF SAYS
In .he Circuit Court of the United states
for The Eastern District Of Virginia at
Richmond.
southern Bell Telephone and telegraph
Company.
.vS.
City of Richmond. Defendant
In Equity.
George H Fearons. Leake O. Car
stiles & Holiday, counsel FOR complain
ant
Henry II. Pollard. counsel for defendant.
Golf. Circuit Judge.
For statement OF this case ana me ac-
4ion of this court hereinbefore. see'S + cd.
S5S. The Circuit Court OF Appeals moul-
fed The decree entered by this court ana
ren,anded the case with instructions as
set forth in the opinion of that court -
u. s. App, CSC. The Supreme Court OF the
Tinted states on certiorari to the Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit re-
nlanded the cause 10 this court Win u
rections that further proceedings be haq
>
ms announced in the opinion OF that court
ia u. S., 7Gl Mr. Justice Harlan. in clos
ing the opinicn of the Supreme Court ga
II. s.. 17s), says: What rights the ip-
nellce had or has under the laws OF var
:iniR and the ordinances OF the CITY OF
Richmond is a question which the Circuit
Court did not decide. but expressly "iii'-
ed it is appropriate that That question:
should first be considered and determined
% tfCfp al M.
The only questions III this case at TINS
time. therefore, relate 10 the rights OF
the complainant under section 1881 OF the
Code Of Virginia and under the ordinances
passed by the Council OF the city OF Rich
1nond granting the consent OF that city,
10 the Southern Bell Telephone and 1eie-
graph Company TO use Its streets with me
poles and lines of that company, and also
under The ordinances repeating the reso-
luton of consent and relating to the JOINT
use of rolcs erected for the support OF
wires used in connection with The trans
mission of electricity. Said section OF the
Virginia Code is as follows: Every teie-
graph and every telephone company III
corporated by this or any other state. or
BY the unitsd States, may construct. hHa'h-
: lain and operate its line along any OF the
State or county roads OF wo-ks or the va
tiers OF the State and along and parallel
10 any of the railroads OF the State, pro-
rided The ordinary use of such reads.
works, railroads and waters be not there
BY INSTRUCTED. and along or over the
streets of any city or town, with the con-
sent of the Council thereof.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY.
The ordinance of the city of Richmond.
under which the complainant claims the
right 10 use the streets OF that city Tor
The poles and wires of its lines, was pass
cd J.ne &c. 1854 and while it plainly
granted nermi.ssion TO the Southern Bell
,rcIeEhone and Telegraph Company 10
erect poles and run wires thereon on the
public streets of said city. upon The con-
diions and under the provisions or salo
grant, II also, il its fifth section, reserN-
cd TO the Council of the city the right 10
repeal said entire ordinance al any time,
such renesI! 10 take effect twelve months
after the adoption Of The repeating reso!u-
ton.
The complainant accented the terms OF
The ordinance given and consent. and
erected its lines along and over the
streets OF the city OF Richmond under
The provisions of the same. Having
agreed with the city, for reasons OF its
cw.., 10 the terms, conditions. and re-
strict!onS of said ordinance and having
for years ,acCuiesced i'll the same, COM
plainant should not now be permitted 10
8 c.tnef deny Vdll0ilS "a SSS&i'C 10
cuirements. The city of Richmond eN-
ercising the right Of repeal reserved IL, on
the 14th day Of December, 1894. repealed
the ordinance OF June "a, 1854. grantins
the right OF way throughout the city 10
the Southern BeN Telephone and Tee
graph Company. such repeal to take e;lec'
~ months thereafter. Consequently. the
complainant on and after the 17th day
OF December, 1898. had under the laws OF
Virginia and the ordinances OF the city
of Richmond no legal right 10 occupy
the streets OF said city and use the same
for Its poles and wires.
DISMISSED THE BELL.
This court is not TO pass upon the pro
pr.c,y of the ordinance of repeal. for INK
power OF repeal does not depend on either
the necessity for 1T or on the soundness
of the reasons assigned for II. The Su
preme Court having held that the act Of
Congress of the United States of Jul!
-. IsG6. entitled IAN act 10 aid IN th'