The Penn's Grove record., 1921-12-09
:rrOrS Tribunal. 7 to 7, kffirmS
Denial Of Injunction to Pub
lie Service Company.
DECISION ON TEST CASES
Ruling Given on Right CT Company to
Apply to Chancery for Relief
Points Raised by Company
Gases Used as Test.

Griffin of the right OF the Public
Service Railway Company to obtain
an injunction to prevent operation If
Jltneys ON the public highways was
upheld by the Court of Errors and
Appeals. While the vote was a tie,
Z to I, it is accepted as an affirma-
ton of the finding of the lower court.
The practical effect of the decision
Is TO permit .jitneys 10 continue to
operate III the streets and highways.
Ihe main issue, whether they have the
right to operate, has really not been
n decided, it is held, because it was side
tracked by the consideration of the
question as to whether the Public Serv-
Ice had the right Il object in Chan
Gerry Court.
A tie vote means .afrirmance and ii
was the second time during the pres
ent terms of the court that d decision
had resulted in affirmation by Il { to {
vote. Such a condition has existed
very seldom in the past, however.
Under such conditions, therefore, no
opinion could be rendered to repre-
sent the views of the court as "a whole.
In this case, however, one has been
handed down by Justice Minturn to
represent the views of that half of the
court which believes the decision of
the Chancery Court should be re-
versed.
Justice Minturn's opinion is con-
CURED in by Chief Justice Gummere,
Justices Bergen and Katzenbach, and
Judges Williams, Gardner and Heppen-
heimer. The other group comprises
Justices Black, Kalisch, Parker,
Swayze and T%renchard and Judges
White and Van Buskirk. Judge Acker-
son was absent and Chancellor Walk
er was prevented from voting because
the case was I'm appeal from Il
Chancery decision.
Gases Used As Test
The original proceeding by the Pub
lie Service was instituted against
thirty-siX jitney operators. Three test
cases were chosen. however. to settle
the legal questions involved. The de-
PENDANTS were William p. Reinhardt,
operating two buses in Newark lsa-
/. AOAC Al ~ I ~ "a DNto ~
Elizabeth and Newark, and William
e. Banker, -Jr., iitney owner in New
Brunswick and South Amboy.
Vice Chancellor Griffin based his
decision solely upon the ground that
the Public Service had no standing
in a court of equity to ask for injunc-
tive relief. The opinion by Justive
Minturn dealt solely with this phase
of the case, his conclusion being that
the railway company as a legally
authorized concern, doing business I'M
der a legislative grant, vas entitled
to be heard, as any other sutton, in an
equity court.
4 Points Raised by Company
The essential points relied upon by
counsel for the railway company in
support of the application for an in
I junction against the jitney owners
were that none of the defendants had
applied for and obtained consent for
the use of the streets and highways
on which they operated, as required
by the limited franchise act of 1906:
that none of the defendants filed with
III S1lC1 hoNoI oiiitNi VI Inv III 80
which they operate a policy of inSur-
ance, as required by the Hates jitney
act of 1916; that Barnett, though fl
ing a policy of insurance in Newark,
filed only a copy of the policy in
Elizabeth; that Banker filed a policy
in New Brunswick, but none in South
Amboy; that the Public Service Rail
way in the enjoyment of a legal fran
Nchise is entitled to an injunction
against" the alleged illegal competition
on the part of jitneys, and that the
Public Service is entitled to protec-
tion of it's franchises and business by
Injunction under decisions of the New
Jersey court.
Merritt Lane, counsel for the jitnev
owners, questioned the jurisdiction
of the Court of Chancery to grant The
Injunction ~eontending that the rights
of the Public Service are not of such
a nature as to justify it in seeking re-
lief in any court, m argued that the
fysnchise of the company was not to
transport passengers for hire and re-
ward but to lay and maintain rails in
nublic streets and to operate cars
thereon. Mr.. Lane also submitted that
to grant the injunction would create
a result manifestiy opposed to public
policy and would result to the disad-
vantage of the public. He submitted
that the company was not in a position
adequately to handle the traffic and
that if the jitneys were eliminated
hundreds of thousands would be
obliged to walk or stand while ridinG
Law Aimed at Patented Roads
State Senator William II. Parry at
Newark issued a statement in favor
Of a law compelling open specifica-
tions in road building contracts. lie
~.5nounces his intention to introduce
ah legislation. His statement fol-
lows:
"New Jerseys need for a law COM
melting open specifications in highway
construction is s%trikingly Illustrated
--Is.I I have J1,Et rODDIUnH