Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-07-30

right 70 DC present Wnen any 1tipu-
lation was entered into.
Washington Railway g. Electric Co.,
next addressed the commission. He
said where counsel disagreed as to what
was the intent Of verbal stipulation,
a court will not consider the stipulation
binding, but where stipulation Is writ
ten, it must be judged within its -four
corners, and Is binding on both sides.
He then read from the stipulation you
may use the record in any subsequent
hearing for so much as it may be
WORTH" and said II don't see how an
agreement may be more clearly stated
AS for Mr.. Clayton, this stipulation was
made on October 40, 1923, and II coun-
sci had any reason to object, the time
was then and not now"
You could not modify q stipulation
that had been made" interposed MIR.
Fleharty.
saying there could be but one construc-
ton as to what the stipulation means
and as to what honorable men would
hold that it meant. S. r. Bowen, also
of counsel for the washington Railway
g. Electric Co., said he was not present
at the conference when the stipulation
was made: He was sent for later when
its language was being prepared, and
his impression was the Capital Traction
Co. could 60 ahead with the case when
1t chose, II they agreed to dismissal
by the commission without prejudice
owing to the then tendency of merger
legislation in Congress, he said.
Dunlop Agrees With Bowen.
Mr.. Dunlop said he agreed with Mr..
Bowens statement, and 1t was never
contaminated tina Shn1lld he GtArtAd
over from the beginning.
Mr. Bride said no statement as to the
record was incorporated in the commits
sion's formal order. but 1t did appear In
a statement to newspaper men, which
first bad been submitted to counsel for
the carrier before being released.
Five days later. he said, a letter was
sent by the chairman of the commits
sion, without consulting him, to the
Capital Traction Co., including the
words read by Mr.. Barbour.
Mr.. Hamilton again denied that he
agreed to anything which was contained
in any statement made to newspaper
men, and said that he would not rely
on Mr.. Brides memory of words.
The commission then went into
conference, and Chairman Patrick ruled
that excerpts from the record in the
previous case could be read by counsel
lOT LIlc ILld1 IL tilCIC was IlO
objection to them raised by anybody
they would be admitted. If, however.
there was objection the commission
would pass on the objection and either
sustain or override 1t as 1t saw At.
II note an exception to the commits
sion's ruling" Mr.. Dunlop said. 1T is
a plain violation of the contract be-
tween the commission and the company
by which the company's rights are
prejudiced."
Patrick Allows Exception.
Chairman Patrick allowed the ex-
ception and then sustained an objection
made yesterday to the admission of the
first excerpt from the old record Of
fered by the carrier. The excerpt con-
sisted of the decision of the Court of
Appeals setting a valuation on the
Capital Traction Co.'S property as of
January l, 1925. Mr.. Dunlop again
noted an exception. and 1t was allowed
Chairman Patrick continued by say
ing that the commission would take
judicial notice of the decision of the
Supreme Court Of the District and of
the District Court of Appeals In the
Capital Traction case.
Mr.. Dunlop said that in view Of the
rules under which the commission was
conducting this case it apparently did
not intend to give due legal weight to
the opinion of the Court of Appeals,
and to protect themselves he offered in
evidence certified copies of the tran
script of record in the Court of Appeals
in the Capital Traction Co.'S case, of
the opinion of the Court of Appeals and
of the judgment of the court
Chairman Patrick then stated that
an exception would be made to the rule.
to the effect that no matters within
the judicial knowledge Of the commits
sion would be admitted as evidence and
the transcripts offered we're admitted.
Heberle Questioning Renewed.
Mr.. Dunlop then suggested that. by
way Of expediting the case. the ques-
lions to be asked Of his witness by Mr..
Hartman. all of them being of a highly
technical character and requiring much
research to answer, be furnished the
company in advance, so that the an
swers could be prepared to such OF them
as the company deemed material, and
the answers could be given when the
questions are asked. The commission
ruled, however, that the questions will
be asked as before and In any case
where the witness needed time for study
of records before answering correctly,
such time would be granted.
Mr.. Hartman then resumed his ques-
tiontng of the company'S statistician,
E. B. Heberle.
Hartman Asks Many Questions.
Commissioner Hartman asked q long
series of questions to bring out the
age of the tracks, car barns, cars and
other property Of the Capital Traction
Co. Mr.. Hanna furnished this infor-
nation In most instances and in nearly
every case said that the buildings had
been rebuilt from time to time and
kept up to date.
Mr.. Hartman mentioned among other
buildings the Grace street powerhouse
building, which, he said. was carried
In the valuation statement at $14O, 1000.
He referred to the fact that 1t was
assessed by the District government
at $4,000 and asked whether the COM
pany had not tried to have the assess
ment reduced to $4,000.
This question brought Mr.. Dunlop to
his feet again with an objection.
Il wish to enter an objection at this
point" declared Mr.. Dunlop ito all
questions that purport to Ak the value
of the company's property for rate
making purposes by INK assessments
for the reason that tax assessments are
not competent evidence in determining
value"
Chairman Patrick overruled the OBJ
lection and Mr.. Dunlop noted another
exception.
Inventories to Be Supplied.
A. %hn r,,>ek 80 AEr Tyart,oor HFr