The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1906-05-25
COULDN'T MAKE CASE STICK
INJUNCTION REFUSED THE GOOD
LAND TELEPHONE co.
Case Was Tried at Chambers Before
Judge Charles W. Smith Tues
day at Hin City.

The GoodIand Telephone company,
owned by cO-partnership consisting
Of c e Swarts and J. 81 JeWelI,
sought to secure injunction against
the GOodland Light and Power COM
pany this week, the case being tried
before Judge Smith in chambers at
Hill City Tuesday, Nay p.
Plaintiffs secured an order from
Judge Smith at Stockton last week in
a modified form Of Injunction, re-
straining the Light and Power COM
pany from further setting poles com
planned OF until hearing should be
held at Hill City Tuesday E F. Muir
ply represented the telephone com
pany and E S. Knight represented
the light and power company
The case was heard by the judge
Tuesday, who is holding court at Hill
City, and the petition denied The fol-
lowing is a copy OF the decree by
Judge Smith in deciding the case
In district court, Sherman county,
Kansas.
The GoOdIand Telephone company.
a partnership at this time composed
Of c E Swarts and J. NJ Jewell,
plaintiffs.
''The GOOdIand Light and Power
company, a corporation, and William
Frazier, defendants.
Now, on this the 22d day OF May.
1906, this cause came on to be heard
at chambers before judge Of said court
the plaintiff appearing by its attorney,
E f Murphy, and the defendant ap-
pearing By its attorney, E s Knight,
the defendant, William Frazier, ap
pearing in person and by his attorney,
E S Knight The plaintiff presented
his cause and rested, after which said
defendants presented their cause and
rested And the court, after listening
10 the argument Of counsel for both
plaintiff and defendant, and being ad-
vised in the premises, the temporary
Injunction asked for by the plaintiff
is hereby denied.
ITO which ruling Of the court the
plaintiff then and there duly excepted.
Approved by me this 22d day Of
May, 1906.
The plaintiff offered afhdavits made
by J. NJ. Jewell and H. L. Lowe, both
Of whom stated that they were cleo
tricians, and that service on the teIe-
phone lines Of the plaintiff would be
jeopardized by the placing Of electric
light poles so as to come in contact
with the wires Of the telephone sys-
tenn The fact that the wires coming
in contact with wood would injuTe
telephone service was denied by de-
PENDANTS, and in proof of the same,
they cited the facts that the telephone
company itself had, in many places in
GOOdland, not used glass insulatOrs on
which to string the wires but had
wooden pegs. And of course what
they had done themselves without in
jury, would not be an injury If done
by somebody else in placing poles with
a dead wire attached to it for gUying
purposes. The plaintiffs. therefore,
were not able to make their particular
contention stick
The poles complained Of by plain
tiffs run up through the wires of the
telephone company. But these will
be usel simply as poles to suspend arc
lights by the use OF guy wires The
live wires viii come from the other
poles where no interference is claim
ed; will reach to the middle Of the
street to the arc light, and loop back
TO the pole from which it came.
So il appeared to Judge Smith that
there was no real or threatened in
jury to the lines of the telephone COM
pany, and he suggested that if injury
did come from either company to the
other through the construction and
operation Of its plant, relief could be
secured by suit for damage.