| OCR Text |
Show ORDINANCES SET ASIDE Ogden Waterworks Co. Regulates Itself. Is Made Defendant in Suit for Compliance With City Ordinances. Hess Bakery Is Willing to Pay Legal Kntes for Water, and Gets Restraining Re-straining Order. Special to The Tribune. OGDEX, May 11. There was filed In the District court today a complaint agralnst tho Opden Waterworks company com-pany that threatens to bring before the court and tho public the outrageous manner man-ner In which the corporation which Supplies Sup-plies the citizens of Ogden with water manipulates its BDeclaJ privileges. If the allegations In tho complaint are true the case will alro show that the ogden Waterworks Company arrogates to itsHf the right to establish and demand such rates as It may dSOlde are beneficial to its own Interests, regardless of the proper restraint imposed by the ordinances of the City of Ogden. Tlx suit In question was today filed In tho District court by Judge W. !. Ma-ginnis, Ma-ginnis, the plaintiff's being Henry G. Hess and Adam J. H' Ss, doing buslm 5-e under the ilrm name of Hess Steam Bakery Tho plaintiff s allege that they ate the owners of the real estate and bdeeTJ business at Xo'b 557 and 2&C1. Grant avenue In Ogden Ftah. After citing th various city ordinances under which the prices for water were regulated to tho citlsenS of Ogden, and setting forth the fact that certain of these ordinances provided pro-vided for a graduated eduction in iirl-e-s at certain Btated periods, tho plaintiffs allege that t...glnnlng April 16. UOA, and continuing until May 1. the defen dant company, under a pretended claim of right claims and requires the plaintiff plain-tiff to pay water rates of 35 cents per one thousand gallons and threatens that if the plaintiff refuses to pay such rate the defendant company will shut the water off from the premises Plaintiff th'-u recite3 that under the present ordinances the cost of water to the premises In question would not be. in any event, more than IGS.00 per year, hut that the defendant wants to charge Jlll.'rt for the period and threatens to cut the water off In the event of a refusal to pay That the. plaintiff has tendered the sum of $53.00 In payment for the Water, but the ame has been refused. Wherefore the plaintiff asks that the defendant be ordered to show cause why It should not be enjpined from shutting "fT the water from the premises, or In any manner Interfering with the suppl of water for the use of the plaintiffs, and that upon a final hearing It may be enjoined en-joined perpetually from such acts. The suit la of moro than momentary Importanre to igih-n It v. It opens very question that It? now up between the ngiifii Waterworks ompan and th City of Ogden. In which the former le suing Ogden City for 186.000. This suit Is based on the three Ordinances passed In 1W and Uil and VmC, by tho Ogden ot Council, which regulates the rates nt which water should be charged and the rates for water for the city's hydrants. The company began suit for $25,000 for water furnished the city on tho basts of the rates that were In effect beforo the passage of the ordinances referred to anl this suit is now pending In the Federal court. Public interest in the i uei Is Intense, locally, as there aro many allegations of unfair and exorbitant exorbi-tant charges. On the presentation of the complaint In the District court, Judge Howell issued a temporary restraining order em tbe defendant de-fendant company and an order to show cause why the Injunction should not be made permanent was made returnable May 20. |
