Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1917-03-13
COMMISSION IS
UPHELD BY COURT
Rules Railway Co. Cannot In
crease Night Rates; Hands
Down Opinions

The Superior Court to-day upheld
the Public Service Commission in
holding that the Pittsburgh Railways
Company could not increase it's night
fares on the ground that it had not
given proper notice of the proposed
advance iii the rates. The opinion was
rendered by Judge Henderson.
The court handed down the fol-
lowing opinions:
FER Curlam-IIersch VS.. Hersch,
9. p. No. 5, Philadelphia, affirmed:
Marine City Salt Co., VS.. Carrigan. c.
+. No. 4, Philadelphia, affirmed Mid
dleton Estate, y. c., Philadelphia, af-
ITned; Deacon VS.. Hendricks, NJ. c.,
fhlladelphla, affirmed; Emmons Coal
MlnlnS Company VS.. Courtenay, NJ. c.,
Philadelphia, affirmed: Funeral Bene-
mt Association VS.. Ellsworth Council
y. Il. A, c. p, Northumberland, af-
hrmed; Lewis Estate, o. c., Delaware.
afirmed; Miles Estate, o. c., Phila-
delphia, affirmed; Masciarelu VS.. Over
ed. ' ''''-A az
Oriady p. J.-Thorne, Neale & Co.
VS.; irving d Lelper, c. p. Delaware
af1rmed; Ginsberg VS.. Philadelphia
Rapid Transit Company, c. p. Della
ware affirmed; Bair vs. Adams Ex-
press press company {. p, Lancaster, af-
Iirmed; Stonor VS.. Rawalski. c. p No
l, philadelphia, affirmed.
Porter, BLACK VS.. Bernheipar
y. r No. 4, Philadelphia, affirmed:
Reld VS.. Reading Transit & Light 60
=; +" Berks, reversed; Fay Estate VS.
Moore Z. p. No. 8, Philadelphia re-
yeTSea; Philadelphia and Reading
Phiis BIZ SSHIilPahy vs. Parry, c. p, No.
= Fhlladelphia. reversed.
Henderson, ]. - Pittshurgb po;,
ways VS.. Public Service Commission
dismissed; Commonwealth VS.. CIeven
stine, Q. S., Chester, affirmed. Iacoh-
son VS.. Lupowitz e Soloman. g p
NO; l. Philadelphia, affirmed: Aidns
hoeo vs. National Ben Franklin Fire
affirmed; Hub Machine WeIding g
Spntractins Co. VS.. Loux, c. p, No
Philadelphia, affirmed. NO l.
hephart knights of Josarh
BulldlnS and Loan Association i,s
Mechanics Fire Insurance Co r. %
~. NJ. fniladelphia, affirmed: Porter
dissents; Stern & Billow VS.. Sica 81 ~ oG oGr
c. p. No, 4, Philadelphia. % affirm r al. al.
Bondo VS.. American Iron e. ii stoai
manufacturing Company. c. p pari1s.
allirmed; Brown Vs. Pennsvi,,a,io'
haliroad, c. p, Lancaster. affirnnd.
Hecht q Co. VS.. Valkone Dve e. III
affirmed. iiiiaueiphla'
Trexler, J.-Chambersburg Uoo,
Sompany' c. p, Franklin, affirmed:
omu.e nd,.n vs. Levin, NJ. c., Philadelphia
reversed; Gallagher KS. Hurwit1 NJ G' 1S''
Phlladelphia, affirmed; Worthington,
VS.: Lewis, G. p. No. 8, Phiiadeipbiai
afhrmed; Meyer Co. VS.. Moss re- Tn
{. p, Lancaster, affirmed. No'
Williams, J.-First National Rarl,
canton. vs. 1nnes, c. p, Bradford ar
hrmed; Hagos VS.. Reading TRANSIT ond "a
Light Company, c. p, Berks. affirm
ST ga, o Wolsenifer VS.. Philadelphia Rapid
transit Company, NJ. c., PhiIadeInb;a
affirmed; Weinstein VS. Genshapsk~'
Nj. G., Philadelphia. affirmed: Hoh6s
VS.: Shamokin, c. p, Northumb berIanI
afhrmed; Scavello VS.. Perna, q p NJ
2, Philadelphia. affirmed: IaFean Nc ,,S
American Ice Company c. p, No
philadelphia, affirmed; Katzenhers, ,, -
star z. 2. No. 2, Philadelphia, affirm
ed; Hagos VS.. Reading Transit a,5 IA
Light Company, c. p. Berks. atfir,, ,eitu ad.
snyder VS. Bassler Limestone Com,
pany, =. r., Lebanon, affirmed; Hobbs
Jenkins VS.. Shamokin, c. p, Noptbs b'
cumberland, affirmed. : -Nol'h-