Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1906-11-28
(rrom Tuesday $ Daily.)


 In tbc District Court. yesterday. in the matter of the ease of Frank l.. Wright, president of the Prescott Elec. tric Light company, ct al, versus the City of Prescott, ct al, wherein the plaintiffs pray that the defendants may be restrained from establishing and maintaining an electric light plant in this city, and in which case tempor- ary injunction was issued some days ago, the demurrer of the defendants, asking that the injunction be dissolved, was overruled. Judge Sloan rendering the following decision. which clearly explains the allegations made by the plaintiffs:
 "The demurrer filed by the defend ants to the plaintiffs complaint raises a number of questions of sufficient i'm. portance to merit consideration. We will state these questions in the order in which they are presented by the facts alleged in the complaint.
 m-"Docs the City. under its Char. ter, possess the power to establish and maintain an electric lighting plant for the purpose of supplying its inhabitants with light for their private uses!
 "2--In view of the present condition of its finances. can the City, under the Organic Act, incur an indebtedness for such purpose which. in the proper administration of it's affairs, may not be paid from its ordinary revenues for the current ycarf
 "3- Having exceeded it's full limit of indebtedness, does the City possess authority 10 borrow money from ccr tain consumers of lights for the pur. pose of building and equipping an cleo tric lighting plant, and enter into q contract with such consumers to sup ply them with light at fixed price and to repay the money SO borrowed by erediting on the monthly bills oi such consumers one.fourth of th, amount due for such light until in, amount so borrowed bc thus paidi.
 "4-May the City construct an, maintain an electric lighting plant fol the purpose of supplying certain con sumers with light for their private us, to the exclusion of others who may de sire to use the same and to whom i may be supplied. on the ground tha the former have assisted the City i, erecting such plant by advancini money for such purpose!
 "The first question presented is tha to which the argument upon the demur Ter was principally directed. Its an swcr must be found in consideration of the City Charter. Section I of Ar ticle II, of the Charter, among othe things. grants to the City the powe to purchase. hold and recover property real and personal, either within o without the limits of the City for pur poses, among other things; 'ofcstablish ing, maintaining and operating electri lights and distributing the same int and throughout said City, If said sec tion stood alone it seems to mo thor, could be no doubt as to the extent O the power granted to the City by th Charter. The power to construct, main tain and operate electric lights and dis tribute the same into and throughou the City impliedly includes the powc to supply the inhabitants with Iigh for their private use.
 "Smith vs. Mayor, etc, of Nash
 vile, l2 s. w. 924.
 "City of Charlottesville vs. Bradir
 2s N. F.. s4s.
 "Thc doubt as to the power of tn City in this behalf arises from tn wording of Section I, Article ", O the Charter, which specifically refers t the lighting of streets and public build '"kr ""' iudhVs uo TcIeIence tO th supplying of the inhabitants with ligh for their private uses. In the sam section, however, there is a general pro vision that the Common Council ma exercise, carry out and execute sue other powers and authority than thos mentioned as is conferred upon the col poration by the Charter, either Q, pressly or by implication and not othel wise specifically delegated.' and t make, pass and adopt for such purpose such laws, rules and regulations ss ma be necessary.
 T In view of the general grant Q mower given by Section I of Article n ,Ad the general provisios In Sectio I of Article ", that the Common Couu } ell may carry out by ordinance an EhkAA AA~x,ss.Sk .ll SNA .x-~-~ u-l