The times., 1900-12-25
SUSTAINED BY BARNARD
Case Involving Authority of the
Commissioners Decided.
Right of the Board TO Grant Permits
Tor the sfrinGipE of Telephone
ara other Wires Outside of the
City Limits-The Question ut Issue
Opinion of the Court in Full.

Justice Barnard presiding in Equity
Court No. 2 yesterday decided that the
| District Commissioners have authority to
| grant permits for the erection of poles
and stringing wires for telephone service
outside the city limits, within the District
! of Columbia. The question came up in
| connection with the consideration OF the
| petition of John H. Nolan asking that the
| pany be restrained from making connec-
| tion with his premises, 24S5 Columbia
| Road
In disposing of the matter, Justice Bar
! nard said that the Commissioners acted
| with authority and that wires may be
lawfully strung as indicated in the sppli-
cation of the Chesapeake and Potomac
Telephone Company for the permit to
! make connection with premises 2435 CO.
| lumbia Road Not being able to see that
the complainant would be necessarily or
irreparably injured by this being done.
Justice Barnard said: Il am therefore.
constrained to deny the Injunction and
dismiss the bill without extending this
opinion further"
The matter came up for hearing befors
Justice Barnard some weeks ago The
was whether or not the Commissioners
representing municipal corporation
have the power to grant permission for
the erection of poles and the stringing
of wires. In that part of the District lyirg
beyond the limits of the city of Wash
ington.
A. B. Duvall. Attorney for the District,
appeared at the hearing and in keeping
with a previous opinion submitted to the
Commissioners on the subject, stated that
he did not think they have the authority
to issue such permits. Nowhere. he said
can there be found in express language,
authority granted the Commissioners by
Congress to issue such permits. In the
absence of such express authority Mr..
Duvall is of the opinion that all powers
of regulation or legislation remain in
Congress.
The following statement OF the case
is made by Justice Barnard in his opin-
ion delivered yesterday:
''On November the 18th. 1900 the de-
fendant made application to the Commits
sioners of the District of Columbia for
permission to string two wires from tel
ephone pole located on Columbia Road in
front OF premises 2437. over the sidewalk,
for distance OF about twenty feet, to and
into premises 2435, Columbia Road for the
purpose of making a house connection
with the last named premises; and the
day following the permission was grant
ed and the defendant notified thereof by
the permit clerk. Thereafter. before the
defendant had made the correction from
the pole to the residence referred to, the
complainant filed the bill in the case,
wherein he stated that he is the owner
OF the premises 2i35 Columbia Road and
that ne has been informed of the permis-
sion granted by the District Commission
ers by the defendant to string telephone
wires from the pole in Columbia Road
across the sidewalk in front of his prem
ises for the purpose OF making connec
tion with the house the same being &C.
cupied now by a tenant of the complain
ant"
He further stated that the wires will
be strung by the defendant in total dis
regard of his rights and without his con-
sent thereto unless enjoined, and that il
the wires should be so strung their un-
slightly appearance, the danger that must
result from their proximity 10 and connee-
tiCn with the premises and the Obstruc-
tion OF the view from the dwellings. would
greatly disfigure and GetrayE from the
value of the property. He further stated
that the stringing CT the wires would be
Objectionable to the tenant occupying the
adjoining premises 2437 in front of which
the pole stands, and which house is also
the property of the complainant. He then
stated that the defendant had no legal or
valid authority to string the wires from
the line OF poles over and across the side
walk for the purpose in question and that
the Commissioners Of the District were
without authority of law or other author
ity whatever, to issue permits for the
stringing of wires to be used for tele-
phone purposes in the District OF Colum-
bia outside the limits Of the city Of Wash
ington. and that the permit heretofore is
sued by the Commissioners is invalid and
of no force and effect and that unless the
stringing CT the wires should be prevented
by order of the court the property of the
complainant. which consists OF the two
houses mentioned. and the other houses
adjoining. would be subjected TO and in
jured by the nuisance Disagreement, and |
damage as before stated. and the COM
plainant would he subjected to irreparable |
damage aAd loss
ITO this bill the defendant filed answer
admitting the complainant's ownership of
the property and the application for the
permission to string the wires and the |
granting OF the same: and said that the |
line of poles now standing on Columbia |
Road were erected under permit of the !
District of Columbia by the defendant in |
1888. and were continued in use until |
1897. when they were replaced by the per- |
mission of the Commissioners with rev |
poles, upon Mhtcn tna wires InereloIOfe e
existing were strung and the liae 9f poles |
and wires so placed have been used by the |
defendant from 1897 until the present |
time for telephone purposes. 1t was cited |
by the defendant numerous instances CT |
supplying telephone service rItsl1e the |
city limits under permit for the use Of the |
District of Columbia, the departments of |
thu governments aud TO private resi- |
dences.
The defendant set forth the claim ;hat |
the permission granted by the ComInis- |
sioners for strnging Of The wires on Co |
lumbia Road valid, and averrcd that |
the Commissioners had aud now have full |
power and authority to srant such Ier- |
mits and to permit the erection of poles |
and the strinsing of wires for telephone |
purposes in all other localities and ether !
points outside the city limits and within |
the District of Columbia"
nrruy nyrn