New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-07-07
VIM. AST0R ESTATE L0SES|
No FavOrS for It as to Price OF
Electric Lighting.
SERVICE BOARD DECISION
Contract with Company Is Held
To Be a Violation of
the Law.

In an important opinion handed down by
Commissioner Maltbie. Of the Public Service
Commission, yesterday It was held that no
electrical corporation could make or grant
amy undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any person, corporation or
locality" Commissioner Maltbe served his
opinion upon the eetate of William Astor
and the United Electric Light and Power
Company, in which he held that a certain
contract entered into between the estate
and the company in July, 1910. for the sup
ply OF electric current to the Putnam Build
ing, In Seventh avenue, between 4Sd and
i4th streets, was Illegal null and void.
The case arose as a result Of the claim
Of the William Actor estate to refund
from the electrical corporation of part OF
the amount which the estate has paid for
electric service since July, 1910. The orig
inal contract between the estate and the
company was made in 1908, but was super
seeded by the new contract OF 1910, contain
ing various clauses for the special benent
Of the estate in question.
Those clauses the estate sought to have
regarded as retroactive, and dispute arose
also as to the exact amount to be paid UP
TO the present time. Commissioner Maltole
wrote the opinion, holding that neither
party was bound by the superseding con-
tract Owing to the serious nature OF the
circumstances disclosed the Public Service
Commission has announced that IT VIII
defer determination OF the formal action
which Il will take as TO what are termed the
unlawful acts in question until an amend
ment shall have been received from the
defendant company
In holding that the contract between the
estate and the company Is clearly in viola
ton of the provision Of Section SIS Of the
Public Service Commissions law. Commits
sioner Maltble said the company had no
right to change the wording and so give
the complainant a special contract with
out publishing the changed clause, as re-
qured by the order and the statute. and
without inserting the provision in all other
contracts with the consumers In the same
class As the company did not file and
publish the altered contract. the old one Is
the only one in force and effect. Therefore,
the opinion holds, the company has a right
10 collect and the consumer must pay the
standard rate under the standard clause.
one feature Of the special contract given
to the estate was the omission OF the
standard clause relieving the estate from
providing suitable space, not TO exceed 20
by so feet for converting apparatus. In
stead Of this the estate actually rented 21o
square feet TO the company for eight years
and seven months Cthe electric current
contract was for eight years., at $1,000 a
year. The space rented to the company Is
less than half what other special whole
sale consumers are obliged to provide gratis.
Another provision in the contract held
invalid was one which provided that tho
current consumed by the tenants In the
Putnam Building should be added to the
current consumed by the Aston estate In de-
termlning the rate which should be paid
by the complainant for his own consurnp-
tlon. This secured to the landlord lower
rate than he would get were his own con-
sumption considered separately.