The Washington times., 1923-01-21


WAS waiting for the harp and crown, and
- after II was agreed that the phone COM
pany shouldn't be held responsible for
poor service during Government control,
but could and should be held accountable
since the system was turned back to them,
they proceeded to grant Mr.. Grimes
ST 900 damages for money loss incurred
during that time
Mr.. Grimes specific complaint is i'm
teresting. Il viii sound very familiar to
many telephone users. This is from
Lawyer Grimes's sworn complaint:
"That during all said period Of six
years, defendant 1.-THE telephone company
has failed, neglected and refused to
render, furnish and secure plaintiff -
reasonable or adequate service il the
following respects;
"(a) That defendant has during alt
said six years, daily Sundays excepted ~
and many times q day, carelessly
negIigently, wilfully and maliciousIy runs
tlp or called plaintiff ia answer calls from
persons who were seeking to set SOMEONE
else, and had requested defendant to con-
meet them with someone other than
plaintiff, or his said Office, and did not
want to speak or communicate, and did
not request the defendant to speak or I
communicate with plaintiff, or anyone at
his Office. That plaintiff and his en-
ployes were compelled to, and did spend
! considerable amount Of time eachnday
during said period in answering said fake,
false, careless, negligent and wrongful
calls negligently and carelessly and.
maliciously pade or caused to be made by
defendant. That large amount OF
plaintiffs time, and that of his employees,
was thereby used and wasted by de-
PENDANT as aforesaid.
"(bl That during all said period of six
years and daily, and from time to time
each day Sundays excepted1 defendant
has carelessly negligently, wilfully, and
maliciously connected said defendant, his
employees and his office, with other
persons, firms or corporations, than those
called for or requested of defendant by
plaintiff, and with whom plaintiff had no
business, and did not request or desire TO
talk, or otherwise communicate. And
many times defendant would connect
plaintiff, or his employees, with the wrong
person several times in succession before
defendant would connect plaintiff, his
employees or his office with the person re-t
quested and desired; and many times and
from time to time defendant carelessly
and negligently and maliciously refused
to permit plaintiff, or his employees to
talk or communicate through said tele-r
phone, or over its line or system, or with :,
its customers, or other users of its teie-
phones and telephone system.
"fc) That for more than year last
past from day to day and many times
each day (Sundays excepted) defendant
would, and did answer the cali and re-
quest of plaintiff or his employees, to be
connected or put In communication with
certain persons with whom plaintiff, or,
his employees, desired to speak or COM
municate, and thereupon defendant would,
and did, pay no further attention to said
call or request, and wholly failed and
neglected to connect and put plaintiff, or
his employees In connection or comnluni-
cation with the person desired or re-
quested, and on each occasion defendant
would, and did, carelessly, negligently,
wilfully and maliciously keep plaintiff or
his employees, holding the receiver and :
waiting to be connected, or put in COM
munication with the person with whom
plaintiff, or his employees, desired to speak
or communicate, for long period of
time"
Mr.. Grimes then pra. ed that he be re-
imbursed in the reasonable sum of 5 900,
and the jury answered his prayer ,"
Mr.. Grimes feels that such vindioation Z
in court of law is deep dent in the
armor of the telephone companies who
have been arbitrary in their attitude, finCi
ing one excuse after another for poor
service, meanwhile telling their patrons to
laugh it off. It will be interesting to see
how many will follow the attorneys foot
steps in insisting, now that he has dis {
covered the weapon, that the companies
realize that there is party of the second
part in their contracts and that party has
equal rights in court of law with them.
Is there any reader of this article who
wouldn't be glad to take day off and
sit ON q jury that had before it just such
a case as Mr.. Crimes's?