The Commission on May 18, 1916, made an order in Case No. 2086 directing the New York and Queens County Railway Company to furnish certain additional service on its lines in the Borough of Queens in the City of New York. The company instituted certiorari proceedings in the Supreme Court, New York County, to review the determination of the Commission. The return was filed on December 4, 1916, and the matter was placed on the calendar of the Appellate Division for argument. Before the case was heard the order of the Commission was modified, which order as modified was accepted by the company. An order discontinuing the proceeding was entered March 20, 1917. (13) People ex rel. Jay Street Connecting Railroad Company v.

McCall and others- Supreme Court, New York County. This proceeding arose out of the complaint of E. W. Bliss Company of the Borough of Brooklyn against the Jay Street Connecting Railroad Company. The Jay Street Connecting Railroad Company was granted a franchise to construct a railroad on Pearl street between John and Plymouth streets in the Borough of Brooklyn. The Bliss Company had a building erected along Pearl street between John and Plymouth streets, and the Jay Street Connecting Railroad Company did not construct its railroad and operate its trains along this portion of its route so as to give service to the Bliss Company. The Commission entered an order in Case No. 1599 directing the Jay Street Company to proceed to exercise its entire franchise by extending and constructing certain branches of its railroad, to operate cars over that route and to give adequate service to the Bliss Company. The company sued out a writ of certiorari, which was allowed by Hon. Justice Samuel T. Maddox at the Special Term of the Supreme Court for the County of Kings. The venue was subsequently changed to New York County. The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the proceedings of the Commission and dismissed the writ. The company appealed to the Court of Appeals, but before proceeding to bring the appeal on for argument it applied to the City for some comprehensive franchises which if granted would enable it to furnish better service to the Bliss Company than would be possible under the old franchises.

These franchises were procured and the Commission gave authority to the Jay Street Company to exercise the franchises. The roads were constructed in accordance with the new franchises and the appeal to the Court of Appeals was withdrawn.

(14) People ex rel. New York and Queens County Railway Company v. Public Service Commission- Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

The Commission on December 8, 1914, adopted a resolution directing the institution of court proceedings to compel the New York and Queens County Railway Company to construct and operate its unconstructed franchise route on Flushing avenue between Ehret avenue and Jackson avenue in the Borough of Queens, City of New York. Thereupon the New York and Queen's County Railway Company applied to the Commission for the approval of a declaration of abandonment of its unconstructed franchise routes including a portion on Flushing avenue in the Borough of Queens. The company's application was denied by the Commission by an order entered in Case No. 1894. Certiorari proceedings were instituted by it in Supreme Court, New York County, to review the order of the Commission. Upon a hearing before the Appellate Division the determination of the Commission was affirmed. After reviewing the facts, the court said:

((* * Y Under these circumstances an issue of fact was presented which it was peculiarly within the province of the Commission to decide and with their determination: we should not interfere unless, as was said in People ex rel. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co. v. Willcox, 157 App. Div. 698, the evidence preponderates against the determination made by the Commission for 'in the interests of the convenience and safety of the public the Legislature vested the Commission with broad discretionary powers and it would require clear and convincing evidence that their determination on the facts was erroneous to warrant the court in annulling the order.' We find in the present proceeding that the evidence does not preponderate against the determination made by the Commission, but in its favor; nor is there any evidence before us to show that the determination on the facts was erroneous.'

The company then appealed to the Court of Appeals but delayed in causing the return to be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. Notice was served on the company requiring it to file the return within ten days with a view to making a motion to dismiss the appeal if the return was not filed within that time. The return was not filed as required but the motion was held in abeyance at the request of the company's officials pending the result of certain conferences between the company and the Commission and in February, 1917, the appeal was withdrawn.

(15) People ex rel. The Newtown Gas Company v. Public Service Commission-Supreme Court, New York County.

A proceeding was instituted before the Commission upon the complaint of A. Herrmann and others, complaining of the gas rate of $1.00 per thousand cubic feet charged by The Newtown Gas Company in the Second Ward of the Borough of Queens. Hearings were held before the Commission. On May 1, 1913, the hearings were adjourned subject to call, when the Gas Company agreed to reduce the rate to 95 cents for one year. Upon the re-establishment of the old rate the hearings before the Commission were resumed. The Commission entered an order in Case No. 1610 directing the company to reduce its rate to 85 cents per thousand cubic feet, effective July 1, 1916, and to continue it for one year thereafter. The company applied at Special Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, for a writ of certiorari to review the Commission's order. After argument the motion for the writ was granted upon the condition that all moneys collected over and above the amount fixed by the order of the Commission be deposited in a bank pending a decision in the certiorari proceeding. An order to that effect was entered and the Bank of Long Island was named as trustee. The Commission's return to the writ of certiorari has been filed. An order was entered upon consent of both parties permitting the Bank of Long Island to invest $165,000 of the money deposited with it by The Newtown Gas Company in United States 10-twenty-five year 4 per cent. bonds, second Liberty Loan. (16) People ex rel. Jamaica Gas Light Company v. Public Service Commission.

(17) People ex rel. Richmond Hill and Queens County Gas Light Company v. Public Service Commission.

(18) People ex rel. Woodhaven Gas Light Company v. Public Commission Supreme Court, New York

Service
County.

Proceedings were instituted before the Commission upon the complaint of Albert C. Schwarz and more than one hundred other customers of the Woodhaven Gas Light Company, complaining of the rates charged for gas in the Fourth Ward of the Borough of Queens. As, however, the Jamaica Gas Light Company and the Richmond Hill and Queens County Gas Light Company also operated in the Fourth Ward of Queens and charged the same rate as the Woodhaven Gas Light Company, namely, $1.00 per thousand cubic feet, the Commission commenced a new proceeding directing a hearing on the rates of all companies in the Fourth Ward. After hearings were held, the Commission entered an order in Cases Nos. 1797 and 1807 directing the gas companies. in the Fourth Ward to reduce their rates for gas to 95 cents per thousand cubic feet for a period from July 1, 1916, to July 1, 1917. The companies applied at Special Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, for writs of certiorari to review the Commission's order. After argument the motion for the writs was granted upon the condition that all moneys collected over and above the amount fixed by the order of the Commission be deposited in a bank pending a decision in the certiorari proceedings. An order to that effect was entered and the Bank of Long Island was named as trustee. The Commission's return to the writs of certiorari has been filed. An order was entered upon consent of both parties permitting the Bank of Long Island to invest $165,000 of the money deposited with it by the companies in United States 10-twenty-five year 4 per cent. bonds, second Liberty Loan. (19) People ex rel. Kings County Lighting Company v. Oscar S. Straus and others- Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

The Kings County Lighting Company made an application in September, 1915, to the Commission for an order authorizing the company to issue $675,000 of bonds secured by a mortgage. Of

this (1) the proceeds of $135,000 bonds was to be applied to the reimbursement of moneys actually expended prior to July 1, 1915, from income or other moneys not secured or obtained from the issue of stocks, bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness of the company, and (2) the proceeds of $540,000 bonds was to be applied to the acquisition of property or the construction or improvement of its plant or distributing system during the period of two years from and after July 1, 1915. After a hearing the Commission made an order authorizing the issue of $472,000 of bonds upon certain conditions. On rehearing, the Commission amended that order by an order entered on September 8, 1916, by which it authorized the issuance of $675,000 of bonds as prayed for in the petition of the company, the proceeds of which to the amount of $134,545.43 were to be applied for the reimbursement of such moneys expended and when so reimbursed to be used only to make good depreciation in the property of the company. The company applied for a writ of certiorari at Special Term, New York County, to review the determination of the Commission authorizing the issue of $675,000 bonds in so far as that determination authorized the proceeds thereof to be applied" to reimbursement of moneys to the amount of $134,454.43 expended from income or from other moneys in the treasury of the corporation not secured by or obtained from the issue of stock, bonds, notes or other evidence of indebtedness of such corporation for the construction or improvement of its facilities, plant or distributing system, and when so reimbursed to be used only to make good depreciation in the property of the company."

The company prayed in its petition for the writ that the order be reviewed and the company's application be granted without the condition that the sum of $134,545.43 or any part thereof be used only to make good alleged depreciation in the property of the petitioner. This matter came on before the Appellate Division, which handed down its decision as follows:

"The relator, a public service corporation supplying gas to a limited area in the County of Kings, applied to the Public Service Commission, First District, for leave to issue and sell a certain amount of long term bonds. After