The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-02-28
/ Confinned From Ycsterday.l

, T.
I'VE have however doubt the the construc
ton placed upon section 81 by the corporation commission
entertained doubt merely, hesitation would have solved
in favor Of the state The constitution requires regard the
action q the corporation commission prma ace correct Const
80 cl f."
We have quoted at length from me foregoing decisions where
orders OF commissions reviewed where provided by law
that sch order to be regarded pma ace correct
able And would further to how the term prma
fac has been regarded when applied the evidence the trial Of
In the Of Boyt0 as The State "a Ark AS Mr. Justice
Eakn IN delivering the opinion Of the court, said:
Possession of property recently stolen without reasonable
PLANTATION OF that possession evidence Of guilt to the jury
for their consideration this sense it bJiud facc evidence but
not in the that it such evidence compel the Jury to
conviction unless be rebued 1t would have been better have
modified tie complained Of so as tc impress upon the
jury the idea that the evidence them for their considerations
under all the circumstances be weighed tending guilt
but not mperTey imposing upon the jury the duty OF conviction
In the Union Central Life Insurance Co. u.s. CaLIccu
% Ark 5I9 So 5 W 355 Mr. Justice Wood in delivering the
opinion Of the court, said:
Proof OF the Giving Of a promissoy by person
another without anyng else appearing baa tat evidence Of
accounting and settlement all demands between the parties
that the maker at the date q the note was indebted to the pce
upon such settlement the Of such but this a
presumption which may be pced proofs Of the consideration
q such note and the occasions for and circumstances attending the
giving Of same
In the the term bma tac used in section e.
article supra is not contemplated that any additional evidence
should be considered by the Supreme review unless within
the discretion of said court the should be remandcd for further
investigation II no additional testn ny to be considered appeal
II Il
legislative body as held by the Supreme Court CT the United States
in the case OF Pyeefs al AHdAc Coast Line Co. q supra
what the effect OF being regarded prma ace just reasonable
and correctg 1t simply that in considering the testimony
and the record upon which the order based the presumption
arises the Supreme Court that the order thereon made be
regarded as pna ace Just reasonable and correct such presmp
ton subject to be overcome by evidence that may be the record
that clearly rebus
Such presumption arising in favor Of the order while strong
not one OF conclusive character 1t will give way fa
exhibition of the contavalng evidence in the record The pre-
sumption given by this provision favor the commissions order
belongs to that class Of prra face orders Prescriptions that
ebuttabe and will yield the legitimate rectas of the record
the probave force OF the evidence the record 1t upon the
appellant the burden OF making clearly appear the reviewing
body that the order made by the commission is The
appellant cannot with hope Of ask the revising tribunal
overthrow e findings Of the Commission mcrcnces
remote possibilities will fail unless overcomes the presumption
by making error manifest Elot5 Appellate Procedure III.
The only question in this record telephone facilities be
furnished by the railroad company pertains necessary
to proper discharge of its duties carrier 1t not
necessary TO determine the distinction between the of public
corporation when acting its public capacity and when in its
private capacity; for the complained of upon which this
based relate solely TO that OF public service corporation its
public capacity.
presumption in favor of the unes reasonabness and
of the Commissions order In fact great weight usans it
The order OF the Commission is accordingly affirmed
COMPLAINT NO u.s.
BARTLEsvILLE NTERuRBAN RAILWAY CO., OF Bartlcsyilc
ATcHIsoN TOPEKA SANTA FG RAILWAY COMPANY.
Filed June o 1908
Asking for crossing
Evidence heard July "a 1908 and order was issued as
CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA
ORDER NO. I25
BARTLEsyILLE lNrERURn>N RAILWAY COMPANY,
ATcInsoN. TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Defendant