The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1904-06-03
MAY COME UP TODAY
ARGUMENT IN CONTROVERSY be-
TWEEN LIGHT COMPANIES.
Citizens Company Files Answer 10
Montgomery Company, and Moves
to Dissolve Injunction Against
Stringing Wires.

Argument in the legal controversy
between the Citizens Light, Heat and
Power Company and the Montgomery
Light and Water Power Company will
probably be heard by Judge A. D. Sayre
of the City Court this morning
Judge Sayre on Tuesday. it will be
remembered. temporarily enjoined the
Citizens Company from stringing its
wires on Dexter Avenue, on the petition
fled by the Montgomery Company. The
petition sets forth that the authority
for this work was illegally given by
the City Council. Specifically 1t was
alleged that the resolution authorizing
the Citizens Company to string It's
wires on Dexter Avenue was a meas
ure of permanent operation, and, as
such. required a majority vote of all
members of the Council; that 1T was
passed by eight of the fifteen votes in
the Council, and that one of the Al
dermen voting for it,. Mr.. Ryan, was
In the employ of the Treasurer of the
Citizens Company and was. therefore,
disqualified from voting.
Yesterday the Citizens Company,
through counsel, answered the petition
and moved to dismiss the bill and dis
solve the injunction.
In it's answer, the Citizens Company
expressly denies that the resolution
adopted by the City Council is to be
of permanent operation, and conse-
quently a majority vote of all of the
Aldermen was not essential.
1t Is admitted that Aldermen A. g.
Forbes and c. l.. Ruth are stockholders
and directors in the Citizens Company
but 1t is denied that either their votes
or the votes of Alderman Ryan affected
the legal passage of the resolution, 1T
having received a majority of the votes
cast, a quorum being present.
This respondent expressly denies"
the answer continues, that the action
of the City Council of Montgomery in
adopting said resolution was null and
void and this respondent expressly de-
MES that 1t would not have the right
to string its wires in the manner pro-
vided and stipulated in said resolution,
without the adoption of said resolution:
and respondent expressly denies that in
the event it should string its wires in
the manner provided or stipulated In
the said ordinance. it would interfere
with the poles and wires of the COM
plainant. and irreparably damage COM
plainant's wires and make it impossi-
BILE for complainant to furnish light
and power to the citizens of Montgom
cry that It is under contract and obli-
cation to do, and this respondent ex-
pressly AYERS that If its wires were
strung in the manner provided and
stipulated in said resolution that such
wires would have to be strung in ac-
cordance with the ordinance of the city
then in existence, and 1t expressly
AYERS that if the wires were so strung
as provided in said ordinance that
such wires would not come in contact
with the wires of the complainant and
would not interfere with the poles and
wires belonging to the complainant
and would not cause irreparable dam
age to compliments wires or make IT
impossible for complainant to furnish
light and power to the citizens of Mont
gomery; but that the wires of this re-
spondent, if strung as provided for by
said ordinance. would be free from con-
tact with the wires of said complainant
and would in no way interfere with the
compliments wires or poles"
The controversy between the two
light companies is watched with inter-
est by the public.