
    No. 9684.
    The Burlington Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission. The Burlington Gas & Electric Co. v. The Town of Burlington. The Thomas S. Hayden Realty Co., Intervenor.
    Decided Nov. 8, 1920.
    Rehearing denied Jan. 10, 1921.
    Proceeding before the Public Utilities Commission involving the authority of a municipality to erect and operate a lighting plant. Finding in favor of the municipality.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    1. Public Utilities Commission — Finding of Fact. A finding of fact by the public utilities commission which is justified by the evidence, will not be disturbed on review by the supreme court.
    
      Writ of Review to the Public Utilities Commission.
    
    Mr. William R. Eaton, Mr. Richard Peete, for petitioner.
    No appearance for respondents.
   Mr. Justice Teller

delivered the opinion of the court.

This matter is before us to review an order of the Public Utilities Commission. The petitioner was the owner of the gas plant in the Town of Burlington, this state, and complained to the Public Utilities Commission that the City of Burlington had, under an ordinance providing for a bond issue.for the purpose of extending the water system of the town, constructed and put into operation an electric light plant, and was in competition with the petitioner in the matter of furnishing light.

The petitioner claimed that the Town of Burlington had not complied with Chapter 10 of the Laws of 1917, which requires that a public utility shall thereafter obtain from the commission a certificate that public convenience and necessity require the exercise of the right or privilége claimed by the utility. The case turned upon the time at which the work on the municipal lighting plant was begun. The petitioner alleged that, while the work on the pumping plant antedated the going into effect of the Law of 1917, the lighting plant was begun after the law became effective. Upon this question the commisson heard testimony and found in favor of the Town-of Burlington. An examination of the evidence shows that the commission’s finding was fully justified; that being so the finding must stand and the order of the commission is therefore affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Garrigues and Mr. Justice Denison concur.  