New Britain herald., 1927-03-23
HARTFORD LOSES
 ! TROLLEY INCOME
9udSe Rules 2 Per Cent Tax l Levy Is Not Legal

Hartford, March 2S CP-The suit of the city Of Hartford against the Connecticut company 10 collect two per cent Of the gross fares received by the trolley company within the city's limits and amounting 10 S5o,- GOO annually. was lost by the city yesterday when Judse Newell Jen- nings, in a decision branding the two percentage as an illegal tax, gave Judgment for the trolley Company. The city will appeal the decision.
 Paid SG...o0O
 The trolley company paid the two per cent from 1894 to 1923 the tot al payments to the city amounting to s6T7,00N. The victory of the trolley company means the loss of millions of dollars to the city in the future and a possible increase in the grand list Of $a,5o0,000 to offset the reduction in its fixed revenues.
 The result of the suit begun by Robert r. Butler as corporation counsel under the late Mayor Kim sela and prosecuted by Corporation Counsel w. Arthur Countryman, Jr, was received in municipal circles with surprise and trolley company circles with kind of quiet expect ancy. The trolley company would have continued the pay the two per centage under the so-called Tucker grant without question, 1t was learn- cd authoritatively had 1t not been for the opposition Of the democrats in 1919 to the operation of the one man cars in the city limits. After that opposition the trolley company decided 10 test the legality of the two percentage it was paying, by refusing further payment of taxes in 1928.
 Legality Debated.
 Joseph r. Berry of Hartford and George D. Watrous of New Haven, eounsel for the trolley company, contended that the annual pay ments Of the money by the company 10 the city were in the nature of tax and therefore illegal. The city contended that the payments were in return for the privilege of cleo frifying their lines in 1894 as em- bodied in the Tucker grant.
 Finding that this levy was and Is a tax" Judge Jennings said:
 T have searched this record in Vain for any evidence that the two per cent payment required was just and equitable compensation for the expenses thus to be incurred tby the city). There is just simply no trace Of any such thing.
 Found "TaX"
 "On the other hand, the record is Full of description of this levy as a tax. Eliza S. Goodrich Gin a posthu- nous deposition) said he never heard 1t called anything else and it is repeatedly referred 10 as a tax in the council proceedings. Of course, calling levy a tax does not make 1t one. The best description of this levy is found in the Tucker grant itself" said the judge quoting the reference as follows: The direc- tors shall pay into the city treasury each year two per cent of it's an- nual gross receipts of fares as evi- denced by such reports, until such time as the state law shall be so changed as to provide that taxes of the street railway companies shall be paid locally instead of to the state; and in case of such change in the law, the company shall pay an- nually to the city any deficiency in the amount of said taxes from the amount of said two per cent on the receipts aforesaid.
 As is stated by the trolley com pany," continued Judge Jennings "this virtually leyics the action As tax and in connection with the evidence previously quoted shows plainly that the city was az Rrieved because taxes were paid tc the state and was determined to pecure q tax for the local treasury.