The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-05-06
Court Decided Against City
Of Danville Yesterday.
MATTER OF FREIG HTRATES
Entirely Reversed The Interstate Com.
msrcs Commission. Which Had
Upheld Danvllle III Every u
Point.

Tho following JUDGES arc IN 1tteuoAAcoi
Circuit Judges Com and Himonton and
DISTRICT Judges Morris and Keller.
one Of the most interesting cases In
which opinions are handed down s that
Of the Interstate Commerce Commission
W.. the Southern Railway. in which the
opinion sustains the District Court and Is
adverse TO the city OF Danvillo, the plain
4 tin, IN the original action before the
Interstate Commerce Commission The
opinion Of the court Is delivered by Dis
ltrict Judge Boyd. In the decision Of this
cause the efforts Of the merchants Of the
city Of Danville to mcclure more advant-
ageous freight rates end In failure. though
the Interstata Commerce Commission de-
5oided In favor Of tho atty In its action
against the railway on every point at
Issue. . sa a q, W. / a ss5sss TN Il
REDUCE FREIGHT RATES.
The commission Issued an order requir-l
ing the Southern Railway Company to
reduce Its freight rates on sundry5 class
$es Of freight to Danvllle and on tobacco
shipped from Danyille to certain points
In the West. The railway company de-
$clined to obey the order Of the commits
sion, W1creupon tho Interstate Commerce
Commission instituted suit against the
company In the District Court for tho
y v
decided In favor of the railway company
and the lower courts opinion has Just
been affirmed In closing the opinion.
Judge Boyd says TT being. theref fore as-
scertained that the low rates to Lynchburg
and Richmond are due to#active, legtti-i
mate competition. and that the local rates
charged by the Southern Railway Com
ypany from Lynchburg to Danville are not
Within themselves unreasonable, We are
OF opinion chat the principle Of law as
above stated apply, and the Judgment Of
! the Circuit Court Is affirmed.
One effect OF the decision Is to show
Econcl usavely that the Interstate Commerce
SCon1rni ssion has no power to- enforce It's
decisions, and that the work OF the COM
mission in any case may be blown away
In single breath by the courts, IA as
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN 6 A
81 The court announced and handed down
Its opinions In tho following cases
NO. 44G. w. II. Rlckard OF al, appellants
VS.. William Taylor ct al, aprelees Ap-
peal from the Circuit Court Of the United
states for the Northern District Of w est
Virginia. at Parkersburg g. Opinion BY
Judge wad dill, Reversed with costs and
remanded With directions TO DISMISS COM
y p' No ~ William i, Ratnley. s appellant
vs., Columbia Phonograph Company, APP
c;tec & Appeal from the Circuit Court at
baltimore, Nd. Opinion by Judge Strnon-
tor Affirmed with coata. y.
No. ie5. Stephen 4 we, ia &, sneriir
of Tyler county, va - apEella Y Z: 9;
Louis a.. 2Brenneman.5s3 q PIP elle!e.s q ppehl
from the Circuit Court at Par xsrshu-g.
Opinion by Judge Boyd. Demanded with
directions to modify the decrse en- . y
by the Circuit Court. Y,
No. 4e7 Interstate Con,meEce G :, ~ !.
Company, appellee Appeal from IN the Cir IT.
QUIT Court at DanYllle sV opihlnh ~
Judge Boyd. " Atnrmed' - =.
No ~ City OF newport News y. Y. Z,
plaintiff IN error, vs. Alexanoer ~. VIZ,
defendant n IN e,l1l - ~,
Court at ortolR Va. Ip''lio!t ~ s. 1! uus
Mcdowell, Affirmed win COSTS g, z, E{s
NO. 4A. ChesapeuKe s'dn ~ ~. "
tltloner' npps..a'. VI = Small hanIs-
rupt appe Mexto,x pveaA f, Nv Jud -
Mcdowell :; Affirmed With oosu. 7.
No. 40. caesar Rooertson' IAa e,ns =
schooner ma ggle appe!!aht W sonoo y
er Repecca, ppeIiee' Appe q 1roiI, us
District Court AZ u =. pin
ion by Judge s1monton, reversed seq Win l1
costs, z, ,,,, Z, g, :. !, I. j,
appellants vs.. Tho South Carolina g Loan
and Trust Companytet al, appellees. Ap-
peal IRON o., me
ton, s. c.s5yIn re the Goldyl!le Manu !
turing Company. Opinion py Judge SIM SIM
onton, Affirmed with casts.
No. 4n. Ohio River Railroad Company,
plaintiff IL error VS. Nora Shannon, ad-'
ministratrix OF George Q. Shannon, de-
ceased. DEFENDANT N error. From q, tho
Circuit Court at Petersburg, y, w,
Opinion by Judge Con. Affirmed with
costs. ], !.
No. I6. Guild q co. plaintiff N error
Va, Maria II. Pringle, administratr!x Of
r., s, Pringle. defendant in error From
the Circuit Court ut Charleston. g. G.
Motion OF defendant In error to hear
cause at this term, she waivtng the pro-
visions Of rule sa and q. Motion refused
Ga. was admitted to practice tn this
court. !. !. . .isai
Tho following case was called for ar
gument: -. ".