Perth Amboy evening news., 1911-05-04
FIRST LEG Is
WON BY CITY
CONTINUED from PAGE 1.

wealth. After reading these points
to the court he asked that the decis-
ions be read carefully before the
case was decided upon. City Attor-
ney Hommann admitted the point
made by Counselor Gilmour and sta
ted that he believed that the state
had a right to break contracts made
by municipalities. Mr.. Hommann OBJ
1ected, however, to the supposition
that the new Public Utilities law
breaks the contract that the city
holds with the trolley company.
Read Part OF Law.
To demonstrate his point, Mr..
Hommann read from the Public
Utility law in question as follows:
N public utility as hereafter de-
fined, shall hereafter give, grant or
bestow upon any local, municipal or
county official any discrimination
gratuity or free service whatsoever.
but nothing herein contained shall
prevent the entry into any public con-
veyance, or in Or upon the property
of any such public utility as herein
defined, Of any such official In the
pursuit of his public duties In con-
neetion with the particular v
ance or property SO entered by him,
upon exhibiting his authority so to
do"
Attention To thereafter"
Mr.. Hommann called particular at
~tention to the phrases Shall here
after give, grant of bestow" and
nothing shall prevent entry into
any public conveyance, or In or upon
the property Of any such public util-
ity as herein defned-of any-otfi-
cial IN the pursuit OF his public du-
ties-upon exhibiting his authority
to do So"
Free transportation was given,
granted and bestowed upon the Do
lice in connection with Perth Amboy,
years ago, Mr.. Hommann argues.
when the trolley company signed the
franchise contract with the city. The
carrying out Of the contract on the
part of the trolley company at this
present day cannot be termed the
giving, granting and bestowing of
free transportation, Mr.. Hommann
contends, for that phase of the sit
uation was passed with the signing
of the contract.
Dwelling On the words ''hereaf-
ter" Mr.. Hommann aflrms that the
new Public Utilities law is not a con-
tract breaking law. In concluding
his side Of the case he called atten-
ton to the contention that patrol
men were or duty at all times. They
have certain hours for patroling
their beats but are in readiness at
all times, in uniform and out, Mr..
Hommann stated, to answer calls for
aid or to prosecute violators of the
law.
Fine For Violating Ordinance.
Mr.. Homnann asked that the Pub
lie Service Railway Corporation be
fined the limit under the ordinance,
$15, for violating it's provisions. Re-
eorder Kehoe reserved decision until
this morning. during which time he
read the cases referred to by Mr.. GIL
mour, which permitted the state to
break contracts made by city, which
point had been admitted by Mr..
Hommann, but denied that the Pub
lie, Utilities law had such intention.
This morning the recorder imposed
the full penalty as a fine and said
that he wished he could make It a
hundred. Recorder Kehoe is salts
fed hat the trolley company is
breaking the provisions of It's con-
tract In refusing to carry the police
Of the city.
Test Case In State.
= The present case will probably be
made a test case to answer for the
whole state where similar situations
are involved through the going into
effect OF the Public Utilities law on
May 1.
The court room was filled with In
terested spectators last naght, the
hearing of the case taking about if-
teen minutes.