One proposal that has been gaining some support from the telephone companies in the UK is to have a bell and whistle system installed in the city of bells, Newquay. A town called bellsouth sits to the west of Cornwall. It is located on the coast of the South Cornwall. The proposed ordinance would have the bell used only when the town of bells was in session.
One of the main concerns at that time with the use of the bell was noise. Bellsouth was at that time a busy fishing harbor. The townspeople were not especially keen on having a huge and noisy bell installed. Telephone business representatives proposed that a small bell and two small horns are installed so that the tide could be sounded each day in the town and that the area could be safely out of the way during bad weather.
The initial proposal was accepted and the second bell was successfully placed in place. The next step was for a local official to review the decision and to submit a third version which raised more questions and concern from the bellsouth owed constituents. The original decision had gone against the wishes of the majority of the citizens. The additional compensation clause contained additional damages. This clause contained the obligation for the telephone company to pay damages for any injuries occurring on any premises that are in proximity of the main headquarters.
This new clause included a clause which states that any person injured by a product manufactured by a Bellsout representative on or after the date of the submission of this new ordinance will receive additional compensation owed to them. The review process in the case of the oga report resulted in another clause being added to the original oga submission. The new language stated that any damages that were awarded by the court to a Bellsout representative shall be added to the proceeds of any wrongful act or negligence by that bellsout representative. The review was again delayed as the Bellsout franchisee did not want additional damages to be awarded to him/her.
An attempt was then made to amend the previous clauses so that the Bellsout representative would have a limited power of attorney and could not act on behalf of the franchisor. However, this amendment failed and the amended language was never approved by the board. Another attempt was made but this time the amendment was adopted as the new ordinance of the state of Massachusetts was to be in force. The amendment incorporated a provision which stated that any damages for injury caused to any person on any premises by any product manufactured by the Bellsout company would be limited to the amount specified in the prior clause of the amendment. The board of examiners did not accept this amendment and it was declared not in conformity with the state law. It was also found that the rights-of-way were not limited by any Bellsout franchise rights agreement.
A year later, the Bellsout company applied for a new franchise rights-of-way contract with the city of Boston. The Bellsout corporation again tried to obtain a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ogasawara by the city council. In their application, the Bellsout company stated that they had suffered a series of losses as a result of the prior litigation, and the preliminary injunction was issued. The Bellsout company then filed an application for an adjustment to the tax rate at the next general election. This was met with opposition by the city council, and ultimately the tax was raised by one percent.
In November, 1875, the Louisiana Supreme Court heard the case of Bellsout v. Louisiana Supreme Court. The court heard argument from attorneys representing both Bellsout corporation and the Louisiana State Police, among others. The court heard argument from John Young, a Revenue Court judge, and from Attorney General Edwin Orthman. The court heard argument from several others who were either representing Bellsout or against Bellsout.
Bellsout argued that their preliminary injunction should remain in place so that the municipality could not attempt to impose a telephone tax until the Louisiana State Police became fully reimbursed for their expenses in enforcing the Bellsout ordinance. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the Bellsout preliminary injunction should stay in place, and that the telephone tax could not be imposed until all the claims against it were settled. The court held that there had been no unjust enrichment damages, and that the telephone tax was therefore a reasonable regulation of Bellsout’s right to operate its business. The court did not determine, however, that the telephone tax was beyond the legislative power of the state.