Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-04-20
COURT REFUSES TO
RESTRAIN J|TNEYS
Judge Crump Denies Street Car
Company's Prayer for
Injunction.
NOT A "LIKE ENTERPRISE"
Holds That Jitney May Be
Classed as Common Carrier
for Local Regulation.

Judge Crump, Of the Law and Equity
Court. yesterday denied the petition of
the Virginia Railway and Power Com
pany for an injunction 10 restrain the
Jitney Association, Inc. and the Rich
nond Jitney Bus Company. Inc, from
using the streets Of the city in pursuit
or their business. without first obtain
Ing the consent of the municipal au-
thorities in the manner prescribed by
law.
The street car company made the
claim that the defendants were engaged
| In operating common carriers and that
! they should therefore conform to tho
, restrictions imposed by the city on its
own business. 1t was further charged
by the complainant that the defendants
were undertaking to conduct business
that was without authority Of and in
cohn!ct with the Law, and which con-
Stituted common nuisance by which
the street car company was especially
damaged.
PRAYER WILL BE TAKEN
To SUPREME COURT
The opinion was handed down shortly
after 10 o'clock yesterday morning. Cen
erai Counsel and Vice-Prcs sident Henry
w. Anderson. of the Virginia Railway
and Power Company, said later in the
day that he Will, on behalf OF his COM
pany. lay the matter before the Su-
preme Court of Appeals. probably
Thursday morning.
Under the statutes, when a lower
court refuses to grant an Injunction, the
complainant may take his prayer to Su-
preme Court ut once AZ n new promo
sition. Mr.. Anderson said Yesterday
that he viii consult with ATTORNEYS for
the defendant for the selection of a
convenient time 20 argue the petition
: before the higher court The original
papers have been returned to both
parties and will be filed in the Supreme
Court of Appeals.
Both sides Will argue their case in
the Supreme Court in the same manner
as they have done In the Law and
Equity Court. The Supreme Court JUS
iice 10 whom the petition Will be sub
mittcd Will probably enter an order
shortly after the hearing either grant
ing the Injunction or concurrlng in the
lowe- courts refusal.
DO NOT USE STREETS
LIKE STREET CARS
With his order denying the injunc-
tion. Judge Crump submitted an opinion
| In which he holds that while the de-
tendants, for purposes Of taxation or
control through the exercise Of the
municipal police powers, may be classed
as common carriers, their use Of the
streets Is not analogous to the use made
OF the streets by the public utilities
enumerated In Section l24 Of the Con-
stitution. and that. therefore they can
not be made to comply with the re-
strictions OF this section
~
as follows:
NO street railway. gas, water. steam
or electric heating. electric light or
power, cold storage. compressed air.
Fiaduct, conduit. telephone or bridge
company, nor any corporation, associa-
tlon' person or partnership. engaged in
these or like enterprises. shall be per-
m'tted 10 use the streets. alleys or pub
Tic grounds or city or town without
the previous consent of the corporate
authorities OF such city or town"
JITNEY BUSINESS NOT
| "LIKE ESTERPRISE:p
On the Interpretation Of this section
hinged the whole controversy. Counsel
| Tor tho street car company claimed that
Jitney bus operation was like enter
| prise TO the public utilities enumerat-
| ed In this section and therefore amen
| able TO regulation. Lawyers for the
defendant jitney companies took an op-
posite view. holding that the jitneys'
use OF the streets was no different from
their use by other motor vehicles.
Judge Crump In his opinion, makes
the point that Section 124 has no refer
ence to the control of such enterprises q
by the public authorities. either under
the police power or the power OF taxa
! tion, since the exercise Of public con-
troll in these two respects over every
character OF public service corporation
Is provided for in Article 1o OF the Con.
stitution, on corporations. and In Arti-
I Gle l3, on taxation and finance.
| The language of the section" saws
Judge Crump. considering its location
and context. has plainly for it's object
solely the regulation of the power of a
! municipal corporation in respect to the
use OF Its streets as public highways.
EXTRACT FROM RULING
| HY JUDGE CRUMP
| 'Construing section 124 in view OF
these considerations. think that
the Constitution and our statutory
| legislation. 1t is manifest that the
| words like enterprises are not to he
| taken to mean any occupation or bust
! ness similar to any one OF the several
occupations or enterprises specified.
| THE main object manifestiy had In
mind by the craftsman of this section
was the use OF the streets, and the
several classes OF business in general
requiring the rendering Of public SER
vice, are mentioned because, although
| rs a business or enterprise they are
entirely unlike. still. In the prosecu-
tion of their work. they have com
mon nttribute--that is. they require the
use OF the public streets or OF alleys
and parks.
Like enterprises mean enterprises
or any occupation engaged in by n
| corporation or person rendering a
| character of public service which re-
| Hulres In order that Its operations may
be carried on. the use of the streets.
alleys or public grounds In manner
which is unlike the usc to which they
arc put by, or which Is permitted TO
the public at large. All of the dozen
| Continued on Second PageO
| ---------------------------