The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1920-03-17
DALLAS JUDGE REFUSES
TO TRANSFER GAS CASE
TO THE FEDERAL COURT
Dallas. March 1Te-Thc Lone star
.l Company's secctd attempt to re

i'dllaS, MHIcu - lh' H'"'
G.E Conpany's secCtd attempt to re
Sc the receivership proceedings
hroughtb y tho city Of Dallas from the
Fourteenth district court to the fed
cral court resulted in failure this after
noon, Judge kinbrough striking out
it's amended petition asking for such
action.
The company's first petition met
with q similar fate at the morning
session of the court, Judge kimbrough
holding that the petition did not show
cause for removal because Of technical
errors. An amended petition was
thereupon filed Immediately upon the
reconvening OF court after the noon
recess.
Attorneys for the city Of Dallas
thereupon moved that it be struck out
for the reason that the defendant
corporation had already filed its an
swer and thereby submitted to the
Jurisdiction of the court. Their con
tention was sustained.
The remainder of the afternoon ses-
sion was occupied with reading the
Lone Stars answer in the case, which
consisted OF u number OF pleas in
abatement, a general demurrer and
more than twenty special exceptions.
In opening his defense, &. J.. Harty,
attorney for the Lone star. declared.
There has never been. even in
darkest Russia, Il case where yandal-
ism was so adrotly hidden as IN the
petition in this case
In the initial diminishing Of the
mGFning the honors went to the city
"a DALLAS. On the convcning OF court
nd Lone Stars attorneys filed II petit
ton to remove the case TO the United
States district court for the Northern
district Of Texas, on the ground that
it involved question OF interstate
commerce.
To this the city filed a motion to
strike the petition from the files for
number OF reasons, the principal
one being that no notice of the petit
ton had been given the opposing at
torneys and that the petition did not
show u removable cause. This motion
was sustained by Judge Kimbrough.
Time within which TO amend the
petition was asked for the Lone Star
Company by Attorney Harty. The
city's representatives, however, insist
ed that the gas company either file an
answer at once or that judgment pro
confcsso be rendered.
An answer was then produced and
filed by the defendant. The Dallas
Gas Company had already filed its
answer. showing that it was a defend
! ant in the suit merely pro forma and
| with no real interest in the contro-
versy. Immediately after the filing Of
the answer the noon recess was taken.
General Attorney Harty and his as.
| Sistant, Karl r. Griffith, are repre-
I senting the Lone Star Company. The
| ctys array of legal talent includes
James j. Collins w. s. Bramlett, Ed.
ward +. Daughcrty. Crane & Crane
! aud Etherdgc, Mccormick & Brom.
| berg.
The petition upon which the plain
riff bases its right to relief is very
d volum.nous and traces the history Of
~ natural gas situation since 1910.
| IN gst of the city's cause OF action
!, is That the Lone star has 4 contract
with the Dallas Gas Company to sup,
| ply sufficient gas for the citys needs.
| perfectly solvent and capable OF carry
ing out this contract, but that it will
fuzzy refuses to avail itself OF the gas
! supply that is procurable.
| Bad faith, fragrant breaches of its
| duties and an intention to force in
! creased rates are charged against the
! ppc line concern.
! on the theory that the contract be-
\ tween the Lone star and the Dallas
] Gas Company was entered into for
! the benefit of the citizens of the city
| and that the city furnished the real
| consideration for the contract by
| granting franchise, it is asserted
that the city now has the right to be
ubrogatcd to the rights Of the dis
| lrihuting company because of its fail
ure to insist on an enforcement of its
I terms.
Y In asking for q receiver the city
! asks that he be clothed with fun au-
/ thority to operate the Lone Star con-
ccrn, to make extensions, drill wells,
procure new leases and gas territory
and in general, be allowed to exercise
! all the powers the corporation itself
! now has.
In its answer the Lone Star again
| questions the district courts jurisdic-
| ON in the case on n number of
| grounds 1t also declares that the con-
] tract in question is so general that it
4 il bot susceptible Of specific perform.
anNe and that the Dallas Gas Company
is not confined solely to the gas sup
piled to the Lone Star.
! 1t asserts the city OF Dallas has
4 the right to compel the distributing
4 company-the Dallas Gas Company
10 secure other sources Of supply.