The San Francisco call., 1904-07-02
ELECTRIC SIGNS
MAY Be DIMMED
Injunction Against the Col
lection of Fees by City
Is Dissolved by Court
THE WIRES MAY BE CUT
Unless Business Men Com
ply With the Ordinance the
Lights Will Be Put Out

Gloom O. nights is In prospect for the
business streets of San Francisco un-
less about 125 owners of electric signs
secure from the city certificates OF
satisfactory inspection" and pay the
usual fee therefor.
The Novelty Sign Company, which
supplies the apparatus for the night
display in question, attempted to test
in the Superior Court the validity Of
the Supervisors ordinance requiring
inspection Of all electrical connections.
The company obtained temporary
injunction to prevent w. r. Hewitt,
chief of the city's Department Of Elec-
tricity, from cutting the wires of those
who had no certificates. In his am
davit filed in response to the suit Hew-
lit said that unless the court restrain
ed him he would give the sign owners
five days notice to pay up, and failing,
he would cut off their electricity.
Judge Seawell yesterday granted the
city's motion to dissolve the company's
injunction. The Judges opinion. which
will interest the business community,
is here given in full:
An action cannot be maintained solely for
the purpose Of determining the question OF
opdinsnce II public offcer claimins to
act under an unconstitutional statute ordi-
nance. should threaten to commit an act
which would cause irreparable injury to an
other, such person would be entitled to an in
Junction to prevent the threatened injury. If
ordinances No. 26T and No. 7S7 are unconstitu-
tional they will afford justification for any
interference on the part of defendant with the
electrical appliances which have been installed
hxT MI INF
might be restrained by injunction from inter-
fering with any electrical work which plaintiff
was about to do. But such injunction could
properly issue only in reference TO some par
ticular work which plaintiff was about TO do.
The mere allegation that plaintiff might and
probably would, in the future. install electrical
appliances would not be sufficient basis for
such relief An action, based upon such ale
cation, would be merely an attempt to procure
a decision as to the validity of a municipal
ordinance, without any particular act having
been done or threatened by the defendant.
The grievance complained OF is that defend
ant threatens TO disconnect from the wires, by
means Of which they are operated. certain
by plaintiff for its customers. Those appliances
are owned wholly by other persons, and plain
tiff has no proprietary interest in them; II
the defendant should without legal Justif1ca-
tion attempt to commit a trespass upon the
property of other persons. II is matter OF in
difference to plaintiff whether they will resist
or submit If they do not resist it will be
because they do not choose TO avail themselves
of their undoubted right to defend their prop
erty against unlawful invasion. The theory
upon which plaintiff bases its right to an In
junction is that the threatened acts. II per-
formed, will injure plaintiffs business. and
deprive II of the patronage of its former Gus
toners. But how plaintiff be held respon-
sible by any reasonable person for illegal acts
of the defendant which he, himself, could
have lawfully prevented?
In my opinion this action is merely an at
tempt on the part of plaintiff. without having
any interest in the subject OF the action. to
obtain an adjudication to the validity Of a
municipal ordinance.
The motion to dissolve the injunction will.
therefore, be granted.