S company incorporated or doing business in this state wjis Uiorehy placed under the jurisdiciio- ol the said board.” The company's lawyers argu.-d t hat the city Coimr.il had no power to rt. | fix the rate of faro to be charged on street railways and that the ordinance purporting to a0 this was vnicl Itufc-s Suit tin* of Court.In his decision yesterday Judge JCWing ruled the plain tiir, Dean, out of L-oiirt ou the technical ground that his declaration did not specify the duie ot the franchise granted ihe Clcnor.'il lUil way company by the city council. Judge Ewing held that while the gen oral ordinances of .March. IS'JO, fixing it a-uerit fare on all slrooi railways in The city, was undoubtedly valid, it was not retread ive, and only applied to franchises granted subsequent to the dale lt;«f the general ordinance. In oilier words, accordiup to Judge Ewing, nil street railway franchises passed prior to March, fSL»0, were not subject to the general furs ordinance, but all Franchises, grunted subsequent to that date « I were infected by the general ordinance s and subject to its provisions.Principle Sustuiucd.The plaintiff Dean’s declaration was declared faulty through failure to specify whoi her or not the General Tbdlwiy company’s franchise was granted before or after the passage of the 5-ceut fare ordinance. The company thus, won a technical %'ictory, but at the same time the principle for which Dean contended in bis suit was fully sustained by Judge Ewing. As a matter of Tact, the Guneral liaifwuy compauy's fra ti oh mu was granted in IS32, nod Is Lln:rafore, according to JudgttEwiug, aubjeol to iliu provisions of the goiiurn 1 5-cent fare ordinance. The company th eve fury is defeated in ils main contention, although winning on a technicality.The suit will be prompLly carried to the appellate court.Go to Hoy man's, 1d2 Calhoun struct, for your flats. Caps and Gents’-Pur-idshiugs, They are selling out to quit