Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-06-24
FILE THEfk ANSWER
oonnrssrosA / ensrosD TO
SUIT Fh 1f5iurcr1oN.
Hearing in PPgrefs in Proceedings
Instituted by Wildwood Pool
RooM Prbprietors.

Hearing was Fl prpEress this afternoon
before Justice Anderson, in Equity Court
No. /, in connection with the proceedings
instituted by Robert 8. Turner against the
Commissioners Of the District of Columbia
and the Districts electrical engineer. The
hearing is on the order temporarily re-
straining the Commissioners from inter-
fering with the complainant in the possess
sion of certain poles on which the COM
plainant had a wire and from interfering
with the complainant in the use or the
poles for the purpose of stringing q wire
or from destroying a wire of the complain
ant leading from the Western Union line
at the intersection OF the Baltimore ana
Ohio railroad and the Baltimore and wash
ington Transit Company to WILDWOOD ana
enjoining the defendants from nterter-
ing with the complainant in the use OF the
wire until further order"
Corporation Counsel Duvall and Assistant
Corporation Counsel Thomas represent the
Commissioners at the hearing, wm!e Al
torneys Lambert and Baker appear Tor the
complainant.
Substance of Answer.
In their answer to- the bill OF compliant
filed today the Commissioners admit that
along the Baltimore and Washington Tran
sit Company's railroad there are certain
trolley poles on which the trolley wire con-
ducts the electricity by which the cars Oh
the company are propelled, but the western
Union Telegraph Company, 1t is staiIu,
does not connect any wire with the tIolie'
wire. The Western Union Telegraph I'm az:
pany connects with an entirely new OF us
tinct wire, or wires, from that Wnlcn con-
ducts the electricity by which the cars arc
propelled. it is contended. and the ne"
nected with the operation of the railway.
and were stretched and now pursuant ~
the supposed authority of the restraining
order granted In the case are again
purposes for about 400 yards on the trolley
poles along the three public streets anu
public highways occupied by the rallwaS
In question, in the District of Columbia
The Commissioners add:
I'VE say that the complainant nao
stretched or caused to be stretched the
telegraph wire or wires about two months
ago. unlawfully and without right, anu
he has. without right and uniaWIuliy, peen
using said wires for purposes not heces-
sary to the operation of the said eiectrlc
read and wholly disconnected herewith
The Commissioners further assert that
not only did they act by authority OF law
in removing the wire, by virtue or tnelr
general control ever the streets and high
ways Of the District of Columbia, ana
their right to remove obstructlonS anu
nuisances therefrom but they acted by due
authority and within the police regulations
of the District Of Columbia in so remov-
ing the wire, and that the complainant
acted contrary thereto in placing or caus-
ing to be placed the wire or wires along.
over and across the public streets and
avenue referred to.
Alleged to Be Without Permission.
Continuing, it Is set forth that the tele-
graph wires were strung on the trolley
poles Of the transit company without hrst
having obtained the consent and approval
thereto of the Commissioners Of the District
of Columbia. as required by act of Con-
gress. .
The Commissioners add: I'VE have acted
within our rights in the premises and we
say that we did so act In good faith as the
administrative officers of the District OF
Columbia for the benefit Of the public and
to prevent the complainant from asserting
a private easement and erecting a. public
nuisance and obstructing the public high
ways in the District of Columbia" =.
In concluding their answer the Commits
sioners say that 1.-The complainant uses
the said wire or wires solely for an I'M
lawful business, which Is contrary to the
public policy of the District of Columbia, In
that the messages sent and received are
used by the complainant and his patrons as
a basis of continual gambling transactions
and bets upon the results of races between
horses, which bets would, in the District
Of Columbia, be contrary to the gaming
law. We also say on information and be-
lief that the complainant conducts said
business in the state of Maryland contrary
to the protest of a large number of the
residents of said state"