The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-03-04
INJUNCTION
Dissolved
Mutual Telephone
Co. Guilty Of
Contempt.

Judge Gear gave judgment against
the Mutual Telephone Co. for con-
tempt of court on the motion of S. M.
Ballou for an order to show cause. He
considered it would be too severe to
order the destruction of the company's
latest directory, as 1t was not neces-
sary. The order of the court was that
the Mutual Telephone Co. should, with
in five days, cause to be inserted in ev-
cry copy of the directory issued to SUBJ
scribers a slip of paper containing the
name and number of Mr.. Ballou as
they appeared in the previous directo-
ry. The case would be continued for
five days accordingly.
1t had been admitted by the respond
ent that the directory was a necessary
part of the service, therefore the court
held that by the omission of Mr.. Bal
LOUIS name from the directory the in
junction had been disobeyed.
THE INJUNCTION.
The temporary injunction was in
these words:
Therefore, you the said Mutual Tel
ephone Company, Limited, a corpora
ton, your officers, agents, and servants,
are hereby strictly enjoined and COM
manded to desist from disseminating,
disconnecting, or in anywise interfering
with the telephone service of Sidney
NJ. Ballou on any pretext whatever I'M
til further order of this court, under
penalty of being adjudged in contempt
of court.
Herein fail not at your PERIL
MIR. BALLOU'S COMPLAINT.
Following is an abstract of the petit
ton of Mr.. Ballou, upon which the
temporary injunction was issued, on
September 90, 1903, and upon which the
issue of a permanent injunction is still
pending:
Sidney NJ. >Ballou represents as fol-
lows: That he is citizen of the Ter
ritory of Hawaii. That the Mutual
Telephone Co., defendant, is a corpora
ton, having a monopoly of the tele-
phone service in Honolulu and on Ca,
hu. That it is the duty of the defend
ant to furnish to the public an ade-
quate telephone service, by Instruments
and equipment as efficient and con-
venient as the state of the art affords,
and at reasonable rates, and that petit
toner has at all times paid all moneys
and done and performed all reasonable
acts and things to entitle him to the
service described. That defendant has
not for several years last past, and does
not now, furnishan adequate telephone
service by means of instruments and
equipment as efficient and convenient
as the state of the art affords.
That in May last the petitioner APP
piled at the office of the company in
Honolulu for the installation in his
residence of a desk telephone, and that
defendant then and there refused abso-
lutely and Internationally to install
said desk telephone, but installed a
wall telephone in an inconvenient place
in petitioners residence for which pc
titioner has paid the rental demanded
of $3.50 a month. That such desk tele-
phone was and is necessary and reason
able for the use of petitioner and his
family, and that thereupon petitioner
purchased a desk telephone on the
open market and installed it in his resi-
dence at his own expense. That such
desk telephone is of the latest and
most approved design, as convenient
and efficient as the state of the art af-
fords, and is so connected with the de-
PENDANTS lines as not to impair or in
any degree interfere with the proper
and efficient workings thereof.
That on or about September is, 1908,
the defendant by an agent or servant
whose name is to petitioner unknown
his residence, without leave or
license first obtained, and cut the wires |
Of said desk telephone. That the petit
toner Immediately repaired the wires
and about September "a the defendant,
by an agent or servant, again entered |
The petitioners residence without leave
and again cut said wires.
That on September % defendant for
the first time offered to install a desk
telephone in the residence of petition
ar, but said offer was confined to the
style and kind of desk telephone kept
ana furnished by defendant, which pc
itioner alleges is a bulky and clumsy
instrument and not as efficient and
as the state of the art af-
ords, and said offer was accompanied
~ demand for the rental and use of
'ald desk telephone at the rate of s.. 90
Ter month, which your petitioner al
eyes Is an eNorbitant rate and out of
I'll proportion to the actual cost, and
he burden of care and maintenance
# said instrument"
Finally, it is represented that defend
mt threatens to disconnect and dis
ontinue the telephone service of pc
itioner on the ground that petitionerl
maintains said desk telephone Where
ore, petitioner prays for a temporary
Injunction to restrain defendant from
iscontinuing, disconnecting or other
wise interfering with petitioners tele-
hone service ON any preteXt whatever
ntil further order of the court, and =
hat after due hearing of the matters
nd things alleged such injunction be
lade perpetual.
ANSWERS OF RESPONDENT. 'e
The Mutual Telephone Co. in its an
wer among other things, denies that /
: May.--l90S or at any other time, IL /
bsolutely and Internationally or at ]
II refused to install a desk telephone
plaintiffs residence, but on the con- "
o. hat l,A