The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-11-05
TO BE HEARD
BEFORE DALE
Case Against Telephone Com
pany to be Transferred.
AN ANSWER Is FILED
To the Petition in Court at ST
Louis.
AN ANSWER is FILED

It was stated yesterday by one Of the
attorneys in the case that by agreement
of counsel the case brought by the Mis-
souri, and Kansas Telephone company be
fore Judge Thayer of St Louis asking
for an injunction to restrain the city Of
Wichita from interfering with the com
pany's business in this city VIII be drop
ped. and the original case brought by
the city for an order restraining the Mis-
souri and Kansas Telephone company
from extending their service continued in
NE district court of Sedgwick county be-
fore Judge Dale. In the latter case an
amended petition viii be filed setting
forth the complete facts and asking for
an order from the court forcing the Mis-
souri, and Kansas Telephone company to
take its poles and wires from the streets
OF this city The facts in the case will
be agreed upon by counsel Tor both par
ties TO the suit and the points Of law
argued before Judge Dale. who viii then
decide lie case.
Notwithstanding the statement above
made. an answer TO the petition filed by
llle OfQ ltlfl5llJ4lt Aotll tic4l9 DNAD-N - 10
Thayer Of St. Louis was fled in tho fed
eral court in this city yesterday by At
torney Helm This viii be a very inter
esting case, rs it will decide what rights
the city Of Wichita has and what rights
corporations doing business in this city
have.
Beginning at the first of the case, it
will be remembered that the old telephone
company filed a petition setting forth
1hat under the laws Of the state Of Kan
SIS it had a right to do business in Wich-
Sta. for the company claimed that it had
bought a franchise granted to the Union
Telephone company by the city council
OF Wichita and that this franchise was
for an unlimited time Therefore, it
claims in its petition that it has a right
under this franchise to do business in
Wichita.
IN the answer filed yesterday, every
RAegation in the petition is denied and
some very good points set forth in favor
OF the city. In the first place, it is
cia med that the Old Colony Trust COM
pany. which is simply bondholder. has
no right to bring the case, as the Mis-
souri, and Kansas Telephone company is
well able 70 take care Of itself Then it
IS alleged that even should the trust com
pany have the right to bring the case
lie injunction should not be granted, be-
cause the franchise granted the Union
Telephone company is not meant Short
~ after the Missouri and Kansas com
pany bought out the Union company it
applied directly to the city of Wichita for
a franchise and was granted one. but in
this franchise the time limit was five
years, and the answer alleges that there
was a repeating clause in this franchise
which declared that all franchises granted
heretofore whose provisions We're not
consistent with the provisions Of the last
one should be null and void. So ii was
" the franchise granted five years
later at this company's own asking. The
very fact that the company asked for a
new franchise is sufficient evidence that
they did not consider the old ones of any
account. Thus the answer TO the petition
seeks TO show that the company's stand
or the first franchise is not at all stable
It further AYERS that at the time Brown
Of the new telephone company applied to
the council for a franchise, the Missouri
and Kansas Telephone company also ap-
pied for one. This same night the coun-
Gil offered TO grant them just such
one and even to substitute the Missouri
and Kansas Telephone companys name
IN the place where went the Independents
name