Andrews v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., Civil Action No. 1345-49.

• Decision Date: 09 May 1949
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1345-49.
• Parties: ANDREWS v. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

83 F. Supp. 966

ANDREWS v. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. et al.

Civil Action No. 1345-49.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

May 9, 1949.

Charles E. Ford, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff, for the motion.

Edmund L. Jones, of Washington, D. C., for defendant Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., and

Samuel K. Abrams, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., for defendant Fay, opposed.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she received a letter from the defendant telephone company to the effect that the company has been advised by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia that his office is in possession of competent evidence that the plaintiff's telephone is being used in violation of the statutes prohibiting gambling in the District of Columbia and that the United States Attorney has requested the company to disconnect this telephone equipment and discontinue the telephone service. The letter further contains a statement that the telephone will be disconnected and telephone service discontinued on a date and at an hour specified in the letter. The plaintiff denies that the telephone is being employed in violation of the statutes and claims that it is being used by her in her living and social activities. She seeks an injunction against the telephone company from discontinuing service and against the United States Attorney from advising, coercing, or in any manner aiding or assisting the telephone company in disconnecting the telephone equipment.

Naturally, it is of importance that the gambling statutes, and criminal statutes generally, be stringently enforced. It is of greater importance, however, that this enforcement be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution and laws of the United States. It not infrequently happens that a person seeking the protection of the Constitution and laws, is himself a person of bad character, but this circumstance does not diminish his constitutional and legal rights. This is one of the fundamentals of our system of government and one of the basic principles of the Bill of Rights.

A public utility, such as a common carrier, a telegraph company, or a telephone company, must serve all members of the public without discrimination or distinction. In this respect, public utilities are different from other businesses, such as stores, restaurants, and theaters, which may select their customers. The fact that a person may be of bad character does not deprive him of the right to receive service from a public utility. On the other hand, the facilities of a public utility may not be used for criminal purposes. A public utility has not only a right but a duty to refuse to render service for criminal purposes. For example, a railroad company may not refuse to carry a passenger merely because he has a criminal record or is engaged in an illegal or immoral business. If, however, the transportation is sought for the very purpose of committing and consummating an illegal act, transportation may and should be refused. Thus, if a person intending to commit a robbery at a distant point gets on a train for the purpose of reaching that place, and information of this fact is in possession of the railroad company, the passenger may be put off the train. On the other hand, he may not be put off the train merely because he is an immoral person or is engaged generally in illegal activities.

It clearly follows, therefore, that a telephone company may refuse to...