Evening star., 1932-10-08
DELAYS REDUCTION
Of PHONE RATES.
Writ Will Stay in Force Until
Case Comes Up in 2 or
3 Months.
Continued From First Page)

Continued From First Page)
ing and thereafter permanently from
enforcing said orders Nos. lO7G and
1918.
Defendants Filed Answer.
"On the same day that the bill was
filed, a rule was issued for the defend
ants to show cause why they should not
be enjoined and restrained pending this
suit from proceeding to enforce orders
Nos. 1912 and 1918. The rule was re-
turnable September 29, 1882, and on
that date answers OF the de1endantS 10
the rule were filed.
The plaintiff claims that the fair
value OF it's property as of Decembe.'
81, 1881, was in excess Of S36,0000O0
and the value as CT June 30, 1888, partly
estimated, is S38 900 900, as against the
valuation fixed by the commission as Of
December 81. 1881. of S28,200,000 and
as Of June 80. 1888, partly estimated, Of
$50, 0,514,000. The plaintiff claims that
the value of its property as of June 80.
1882, was S36, 100 900, and that its net
return at the present rate would be ap-
proximately ST. per cent; that the earn
ings upon the valuation claimed as
aforesaid by plaintiff at the reduced
rate under said orders would be not
more than "A per cent for the year
ending June 80. 1888, while upon the
valuation of plaintiffs property, de-
termined and fixed by the commission.
of $29860, 900, as Of June 30, 1888, the
rate of return under the reduced rates
would be no less than per cent, which
the commission claims under present
conditions TO be reasonable.
Failure on the part of the plaintiff
to comply with said orders and to put
into effect the new and reduced rate
will subject it to the penalties pre- .
each offense, the penalties made by
the act to be accumulative.
Restraining Order Granted.
1T was conceded by counsel in argu-
ment that there are approximately &C.
900 telephone subscribers of plaintiff S
corporation; that the average telephone
bill is SIS month or $50 a year: that
a reduction under the new rates in the
bill of each subscriber of so cents per
month would result, but that the new
rate would reduce the plaintiffs earn
ings $4,000 monthly, or approximately
$500 600 year.
1T Is evident that should plaintiff
ultimately prevail herein upon the final
determination of the issues presented.
it is not probable that it would be able
to collect from all of the individual sub
scribers the amounts of which the re-
duced rate deprived it under said orders
and in all probability it would never
be able to collect a considerable amount
thereof, while with respect to the sub
scribers the requiring CT the bond
would insure the return to them of the
amount of rebate should the plaintiff
not prevail upon the final determina-
ton Of the matter.
The court is OF the opinion that this
is such a case as comes within the rule
laid down by the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Circuit Court of
Appeals and will sign an order enjoin-
ing the defendants pendente lite from
enforcing orders Nos. 1912 and 1913
upon plaintiff giving an appropriate
bond or undertaking with sufficient
surety to make good to the defendants
and any and all subscribers for any
damages sustained by reason of the in
junction. the damage to be aScertained
in such manner as the court may de-
termine and decree in that behalf to
be entered by the court in the course
against the plaintiff and surety with
interest at 6 per cent"