The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1914-02-25
Natural Gas Company Appeal
Heard BY Supreme Court Judqes

the city; that this money was used TO
pay OF the bonded indebtedness and
to make improvements of all kinds.
They pointed out that the city
should have the right. after IL had
spent upwards OF million dollars
Tor this plant, TO hold its business
that had been built up. and not relin-
qulsh that right to any private cor
poration. They also contended that
the Natural Gas company had sold
gas 10 persons i'm the city, but did not
designate what IL should be used for.
General Riley said that IL was not n
matter OF the gas works. but whether
or not the legislature was correct in
rs acts. He stated that the case
hinged around three things, acts of
the legislature: right of entering a
contract. and whether or not the gas
company had violated that contract
lie said that the opposition had filed
25O page brief and cited pos author
ities, but that when the case was
gone over u would resolve itself into
compact OF few.
Charge Too Much.
The defendants in the case con.
tended that the gas company was a
public utility and was governed ac-
cordlngly. that the city was charging
three times as much for gas as an
lilumlnant as the gas company, and
that the city gas was in no way Civ
ing satisfaction. They introduced the
names OF several business men of
the city who testified at the former
trial that they could not see to get
around their homes by the use Of the
city gas.
General Riley stated that the time
was coming, according to the wit.
hesses. Tor the gas company. when
the city would be- compelled to burn
coal and other heating and illuminat.
( ing substances as the natural gas
| would have. within 20 or p wears.
have expended itself He also stated
that the gas works question was not
a back issue. as the people in the
| year 1908 voted to remodel II to the
amount OF $4,000
The defense contended throughout
| the argument that the gas works of
the city and the city I'm itself was try.
ing 10 take the rights OF its citizens
as It's own that the persons backing
7 the gas works weer working for ma.
terial gain and that the natural "a I,
company should be ruled BY the state
| laws and not by the city council. as
~ was a public utility. incorporated
under the laws Of the state and gov.
/ tTned by them. They stated that the
city had unlimited power in the mat.
Ter according To grounds for the suit
other cases for the dav were. IL "
Peterson ". ". L. smith. a .uper soda =
ana appeal granted. keshauch as
/ Stafcher. q writ ~ error and supersadas
refused ". T.. EickIev W. rhfiiu ZtrD
/ - al argued and submitted. FIRST 81
toual Hank or lruaUwaV W a. ~ b.
y 'ootes. Of al submitted on briefs.
Iohn -. Iautz ". Emmett D. TumIir
argued and submitted. Z G. EnTub sry
! der vs.. Amaudavillc Titus. brIrf Tor IN
I pelle submitted and bricf for appellant
refused submission. NJ. o. Ncj'ot ~
amanda Mccoy submitted pu HrIff.
| Lucy VI. George VS. Tri state Gas com.
t@nE. submitted y. J.. White w.. ". .
| McCullIgh, submitted. Jesse Ardsra1r
vs. u. 4 -. ". E Co. for persouII ip-
lurles from Marshall county ,1urt
arsucd ana submitted. case of gf,rr.
I w. stewart vs. Marion s.. Stsarf a-I
James -. Jones continued
Today several more local cases vui
/ come ~. among Them. IS. A. stein 81.
I IT, .l' Si1ai- O.. a. Newman and Martin
brown vs. David Levi Tor counsel ices
] T z. Corr.gau ys Board az Damri sI6r.
| eI ut"INlng pcrsuual iriurl,s. south
I side Tank OF Wheeling w. Genie
l WN"HNur ~1tlurH BANK. blanche tfff
/ Vs. s. ~. and D. vs.. Nurtor. fuyoryir-
h'I."hhl iniuTi'.. IHHrIle IrHr NEorr.
D ~ quarter SfNirEs Bank and n. b Fi.
/ deity and Guaranty COMPANY
tn" following visiting atfarrsr.. y.l..
fu court YESTERDAY rI4rr.Hr a.. b,
strictly. Elt.us. q. &c. uHI NrrafT rIt
IuF. judge D. ~. Smith. gInrLaIrfr. q.
O.. f"W''l tHirmorf o.. o. Baker Nor
B EHutown. Capt s. o. rIuuten. ID D.
dith. falrmout o. O.. Gus. lIprearfav-l.
a large delegation OF IIvh arFu.f r'..'
md girla attended yesterday r.ru..-.. .
session NJ court