The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-02
Judge Neal, of the Circuit Court at
NobIesviIIe, Dissolved the Restraint
ing Order Granted Last Fall
PATRONS TO BE GIVEN TIME
WILL NOT BE HASTILY DEPRIVED
OF NATURAL GAS.
Time to Make Provision for
Other Fuel.
Special to the Indianapolis Journal.

NOBLESVILLE, Ind, June 1.-Judge
Neal. in the Hamilton county Circuit Court
this morning handed down a long oral opin-
Ion dissolving the temporary injunction
granted last December in the case OF the
City OF Indianapolis against the Indianap-
oils Gas Company. The injunction prevent
ed the company disseminating its natural
gas service in Indianapolis. 1t was dis
solved mainly on the ground that the gas
had failed so rapidly since the temporary
injunction was granted that the company
was unable 10 comply with the terms or
The ordinance that was granted in 1887.
The decision, which was delivered oral
~. follows:
The court must pass upon this motion to
dissolve upon the showing that has been
here. both verified. but there has been no
reply filed. 1t appears to the court that
the showing OF the facts that have oc-
Cured since the temporary injunction was
granted in last December is very signifi-
cant Uncontradcted facts, as shown by
the answer and the aftdavits, as TO the con-
ditfoc OF the service Of the gas, and the
pressure and quantity. that defendant has
been able TO deliver at Indianapolis, prove
that the supply has very materially de-
creased The evidence before the court
shows that the wells of the defendant
company from which IL was obtaining its
supply have deceased in number twenty
was granted last fall. and that now ii has
only ninety-seven wells, all of them small
and some OF them very weak and almost
worthless; that the intake pressure at the
pumping station at Elwood at the time
showing was made on motion TO dissolve
wa only seven ounces; on the former
showing IL appeared that 1t was five pounds.
IL appears the company has had to discon-
tinue one pump and can only operate with
the other OF the two pumps which it had,
and that when the temporary restraining
order was granted last September il was
able To deliver at Indianapolis between six
and seven million cubic feet OF gas. and at
only deliver 1.5S4.OoO cubic feet In twenty
four hours. And that 1t takes substantial
ly as much gas TO operate the pump. the
one pump which il Is now using, is
transported TO Indianapolis by means of the
pump.
Afidavits show without contradiction
that the number of consumers in the city
who have service that is OF any value at all
Is less than six hundred. and these are near
the high-prsssurs mai mains ,, That since the
thousand consumers OF the defendant COM
pany have voluntarily withdrawn. The af-
i5o miles Of mains in The city Of indian Dp
oils and at many places Ia the city there
is no gas at all in the mains; that pipes
were cut and the odor OF gas could not be
detected at all.
1T is apparent from the facts shown
here that, comparatively speaking. only a
small proportion OF the total number of the
consumers of the defendant company at
the time this suit was begun have now any
service worth speaking of, and probably at
nearly all times inadequate. 1t Is true, and
this evidence shows. that at night when
there Is scarcely any use of gas the
pressure increases and thereby occasions
great deal of danger by reason of aug
menting the pressure, where the stoves are
not turned of. The evidence shows too,
without contradiction. and these are facts
gas field in Indiana has failed and is fall
ing very rapidly and Is now almost ex-
hausted- i am impressed with the con-
viction. from all the information which has
cone by the affidavits and from all the
knowledge which is common TO everybody,
and Of the things of which the court may
take judicial notice, that the gas field, TAX
ing into consideration what it was ten or
fifteen years ago. is practically exhausted.
Now, this defendant company. in order
to give any service at all at Indianapolis
IS compelled to transport its gas. with the
large. loss by friction. about sixty miles.
There Is no pretense that there Is anything
like general or satisfactory service to the
patrons IN Indianapolis. and the evidence
shows beyond all question that it Is not
able TO furnish any better service than Ii
IS now affording The facts are explicit
as TO the change Of the situation since four
or five months ago. Here is rapid de-
crease from between six and seven million
cubic feet OF gas In twentyfour hours TO a
little over a million and half. the latter
amount being not over one-half of the
product of one OF the good wells in the gas
field when the field was first opened.
There Is another fact, this being a suit
in equity, the court is bound TO take some
notice of. This is suit by the city Of
Indianapolis to compel the defendant to
continue under Its ordinance contract to
furnish gas 10 patrons and consumers in
that city under the ordinance of 1887. The
testimony by these affidavfts Is that 80
per cent Of the consumers have been taking
their gas from bored-out mixers. which the
company has alleged under oath. supported
by affidavits. has been done without its con-
sent and without its power to prevent This
court Is not expressing any criticism of
those patrons who have thus undertaken
to get little more gas where their supply
was entirely insufficient but this being a
suit in equity, the court is bound 10 take
notice of that fact The boring out of
mixers, as testified to here and set out in
the answer. is In violation of the criminal
law Of the State. The company has claimed
that IL has made IL more difficult and i'm
possible for IL to furnish a uniform and
adequate service. in addition to other facts
they have set up.
Now. can the city ask court of equity
to require the defendant to continue the
service OF natural gas TO the 30 per cent
of its patrons who have bored out their
mixers? 1t seems TO me. il L correctly
apprehend this question, that the court
may take into consideration. In passir z
upon this motion. the probabilities as 10
whether the plaintiff could make any bet
ter case on the inal hearing than Is pre-
sented upon this motion and the motions
that have been before the court. In other
words. whether there Is any likelihood al
all that the case could stand any better ON
the final hearing than at this time. / be-
lieve that IL is apparent TO everyone that the
reasonable probability from all the knowl-
edge that anyone can have upon the gas
situation is. that the case would stani
worse at any future time than now, be-
cause the supply of gas is gradually and
steadily falling There Ia no fact shown
here in any affidavit and none suggested
by the court in any manner at all by which
the court could infer that any better show
ing could be presented upon final hearing
than now.
THE question is whether the court ought
10 continue this temporary injunction.
while / believe that the defendant company
Il bound TO carry out it's contract as
think the evidence shows that IL has at
and was bound 10 continue TO furnish serv-
ice 10 the city of indianapolis. after II
had entered upon H.. as long as il could
reasonably discharge its contract but IL
seems 10 me that IL has reached a point
that Is a little short of an absurdity To
say that the performance that the COM
pany II now able TO make of this contract
meets the spirit and even the letter Of the
ordnance of 1851. l think that the con-
cfscontinuing by thousands from that serv-
fee Should the court require the company
10 continue as long as IL II able TO furnish
an ounce OF gas at the city OF indianapolis.
with It's great plant there OF $50 miles of
mains and other apparatus and ma
chinery which is necessary 10 run il
Vhen only a few OF its patrons could have
any service at all? Unless IL Is the law
that the company must continue as long
me that IL Is entitled 20 be relieved from
further attempt at performance. by reason
of the facts which 1t could not control at
all. BY reason OF the failure OF natural gas