Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-09-09
0'FLAHERTY MAKES NEW
MOVE IN J|TNEy CASE
Moves Supreme Court Of Appeals to
Declare City of Richmond
in Contempt.
REFUSE TO GRANT INJUNCTION
Counsel for Jitney Men Claims City
Has No Right to Enforce Ordi-
nance Pending Decision ms to Its
Constitntionality.

Failing to obtain from the state SUI
preme Court of Appeals AN Injunction
10 restrain the city of Richmond from
enforcing the new jitncy bus ordinance
penang the final decision of the court
on its Legality. Attorney D. c. O'Fla-
merry. yesterday, moved the court to
summon the city OF Richmond before II
10 show cause why II should not be held
in contempt
The action OF the city In summoninR
20 me Police Court and hning jitney
car operators under an ordinance in
process OF review by the Supreme Court
constituted an act of contempt argued
the counsel for the jitney men. and the
city should be made to answer why Il
persisted in molcsting the drivers oc
1itheEs In the exercise Of a law upon
the constitutionality OF which tho
states highest tribunal has been
asked to pass
On tuesday Mr.. O'Flarertv applied to
Judge Crump for an order to restrain
the city from molcsting the jitney men
until the Supreme Court was able to
pass hnally on the legality Of the iltncv
ordinance. Judge Crump refused to
grant an Injunction and Mr.. O'Flaherty
took his plea to the Supreme Court in
Staunton. laying the papers before
Judge Cardwell
DECISION on MOTION
IS EXPECTED TODAY
Tho Supreme Court. yesterday. denied
the Injunction and Mr.. OFlaherty
moved that the city be cited for con-
tempt. y decision on this motion IS ex-
pcctcd to-day. The refusal Of the court
to grant an Injunction was construed
by MIR. O'Flaherty as meaning that the
court regarded the writ OF appeal and
supcrsedas granted by Judge Keith as
to Judge Weiss decision holding tho
t!tncy ordinance valid. as having tho
preme Court passed on the legality OF
the measure some time this fall This
led Mr.. OFlaherty to the belief that tho
court VIII now summon the city OF
Richmond TO appear before II TO show
cause why it should not be held for
contempt
While this was tho view held by
counsel for the jitney men. 1t was
pointed out, last night. that il the court
had refused the injunction yesterday
because 1t regarded its writ of appeal
and superscdeas as an injunction. II
would have found n way to- make that
situation clear beyond conjecture.
Those who held this view were OF the
belief that the court will go slow in cit
ing the city for contempt
CHUTCHFIELD POINTS
TO SEGREGATION CASES
The central point at issue now seems
to be the right Of the city TO keep on
imposing fines under an ordinance the
legality OF which has been attacked in
the States highest court. When thi,
point was made In the Police Court By
counsel for the jitney men, Judge
Crutchheld directed attention to tho
fact that he is still imposing fines for
violations Of the segregation ordinance
although tho constitutionality OF the
law has been attacked and several test
cases arc now before the Supreme
Court.
With the lawyers for the jitney men
waging an apparently losing fight TO
have the jitney ordinance declared ille-
gal. the jitney drivers themselves have
apparently become d!sheartencd at the
repeated reverses and many OF them
have withdrawn from business. Jitney
cars carrying route signs have prac-
tically become extinct. Those that arc
still plying their trade are operating as
for hire" cars and carry passengers
along any route desired.