The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-04-11
VCITY WON
ONE POINT
In Its Battle Against Missouri
and Kansas Telephone Co.
CASE WAS REMANDED'
Back to District Court of Sedg-
wick County for Trial.
CASE WAS REMANDED

Yesterday morning Judge Hook of the
United States circuit court delivered the
opinion rendered by Judge Rogers in iae
case of the City of Wichita VS.. the Mis-
souri, and Kansas Telephone company and
remanded the case back to the Sedgwick
county district court for trial
On July 5. 1902. the city OF Wichita pro-
cured a temporary injunction in the dis
trict court preventing the Missouri and
Kansas Telephone company or its EN-
ployes from setting poles, stringing wires
or any other electrical work in the rity
of Wichita. Shortly after this the Mis-
souri, and Kansas Telephone company
procured Temporary injunction against
the city in the Unite.> States circuit court
in st. Louis. This Inter case was az
gued about a month ago before Judge
Rogers Of Arkansas.
Some months ago the telephone COM
pany filed a motion in Judge Dates court,
asking that they be allowed to remove
: the case against them to the federal
court The motion was argued by at
torneys for both the city and the tele-
the motion and announced that he would
try the case.
According to law of the United States
the telephone company was given the
right to take a transcript of the case in
the district court to the federal courts.
The telephone company filed a transcript
and on the first day of the March term
OF the United States circuit court City
Attorney Helm filed a motion to remand
the case back to the district court. The
arguments in this case were submitted
on briefs to Judge Rogers and ne has
held that the case should be tried in the
district court of Sedgwick county and
that the United States circuit cour. is
not the proper place for it TO be heard.
He ordered the transcript removed to
the district court for trial. Judge Rogers
sent the opinion to Judge Hook Of this
district Judge HOOK was in Wichita yes
tesrday morning and held a short session
OF the court and delivered the decision.
This opinion is a vicotry for the city,
land il is of far more importance than
most people think. 1t puts the ease in
the hands of both state and federal
courts and thus makes it possible for two
decisions being rendered on practically the
same points at law. Judge Dale VIII
hear the case and may decide to issue
o permanent injunction against the COM
pany and GUST them from the streets OF
the city. That depends upon the argu-
ment. He may dissolve the injunction.
Judge Rogers has heard the arguments
In the case brought by the company
against the city and the briefs are now
In the hands of the printers TO be sub
United TO him within a few days. He
may issue a permanent injunction or he
may dissolve it, The telephone company
wanted to get both cases into the same
court, as there would be no chance of
two decisions being rendered opposite TO
each other and both effG<Ae. If Judge
Rogers should stand that the injunction
should stand against the city, prevent
ing its officers from disturbing the COM
panys lines or employees, it would be
victory for the telephone company. and
the decree would be enforced. Judge
Dale has another crack at the same thing
and if he should decide that the city's
cause was Just and issue a permanent
injunction his decree would be as binding
and have as much force as that of the
federal court.
Bv the demanding of the case back to
The district court it gives the city two
chances TO win its fight against the Mis-
souri, and Kansas Telephone company,
while If both suits were tried in - Ted
eral court both opinions would necessa-
rIly have to be to the same effect