Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-08-29

petitioner. in reply to a direct question
from Mr.. johnson, said the petitioner
held It Is not q utility until 1t begins TO
function as such. Bfr. johnson then con-
tended this state of affairs changed the
whole theory Of the case and said he
could not see under what section Of the
law the corporation was before the COM
mission. He declared 1t was coming be-
fore the commission as a private corpora
lion and as such had no right to appeal
to the commission.
Commissioner George Barnard broke in
at this point and declared be believed the
petitioner had complied with the law and
that its statement answers the question
as TO how the securities are to be sold.
"Then, has the commission Jurisdiction
In this case;" BIr. johnson asked.
1T has" Commissioners Barnard an
swered
els it c utility7" was the next question.
''It is q utility for the purpose Of this
case" the commissioner said
Blr. johnson declared the pleading Of
the petitioner did not hold this and that
under the pleading the corporation had
no place before the commission. He then
made a verbal motion to dismiss and the
com mission decided to hear argument
later.
The next move on the part Of the
respondents was the Cling of an affidavit
of Continuance By W. z. Wider. mayor
Of Elkhart Mayor Wider held the
respondents had not hid time to prepare
their case and had not been given suf-
ficient information on which to base their
contentious. he pointed out the city OF
Elkhsrt has a petition for the reduction
Of the rates Of the Elkhart Gas ana Fuel
Company. one OF the companies involved
in the case, and that for the purpose Of
this case q valuation Of the property IS
being made by the city. he said 1t
would he embarrassing in the rate hear
ing TO have one valuation presented and
another in the present hearing.
COMMISSION DENIES
FURTHER DELAY.
Samuel Ashbv, CORPORATION counsel for
the city Of indianapolis made a verbal
motion for a continuance in order &c give
the respondents time to examine the ex-
hibits in the case. He was followed By
William L. Taylor attorney for a num-
Der Of Indianapolis power users, who
asked for time to prepare a case. He
said he protested against being rushed
OF his feet. The motions were overruled
without comment
Additional evidence was submitted as
" AcnnAoAis anu improvements Uldue by
the various companies involved and the
petitioner was asked to make this evil
dence more specific at the request Of
Mayor Wider.
The respondents put on the stand their
first witness. Harry Wenger, engineer OF
the tax board. who testified as to the
tax boards valuations OF the property.
He gave the valuations as follows:
Merchants Heat and Ligh tCOmpany
tar board assessments, Sc, 71S,917; local
assessment, $276, 165.
Indiana Railways and Light Company,
personal. 81 10000; railway, 1924 $40
real estate. SO 900.
Wabash Valley Electric Company, per-
sonal, STp9. 500; real estate, $24, 195.
Elkhart Gas and Fuel Company, per-
sonaI. S54T.460: real, S94. $40.
Valparaiso Electric Company, personal,
$3.50. 900; real, So 400
Putnam Electric Company, personal.
s121. $40.
Cayuga Electric Company. personal,
$50. 4I2
In each case these figures are lower
than the Valuations placed on the prop
erty by the petitioner. Mr.. wenger testi-
fed the Merchants company value was
that contained in a sworn report of the
company to the tax board. He was or
dered by the commission to bring in GER
titled copies Of the sworn returns Of each
utility involved.