The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1853-11-18
M From the Hancock Courier.
JUDICIAL DISAGREEMENT.

Messrs Chapman and llarkness, OF Bel.
levue, for an Injunction against The Mad
River and Lake Erie Railroad Cpmpapy
for the purpose Of restraining said com,
pany from the leasing or using in any
manner the track, Of the Sandusky and
Indiana Railroad, eiIheriby connection or
otherwise; that an Injunction was. granted,
by the District Court Of Huron county,
Judge Brley presiding, BY Which said
company were restrained from any use or
connection with the Sandusky or Indiann
Company whatever, and the llpasc for
running The short line road from Tlfia TO
Sandusky declared absolutely void. b7.b
AT the lime Of the granting said In
| junction but lille testimony Ind been
taken, and, therefore leave was given to
take further testimony within certain
restrictions; and in May application was
made by The defendants, 10 Judge gCorr
win, for further hearing and dissolur
ton Of The Injunction. The case was
fully heard and the Injunction dissolved
s'to the righ, Of the Mad Riverand Lake
Erie Company 10 lease and use the Sam
dusky and Indiana Railroad, and the Mad
River Company proceeded to run, and
use said short line between Tiffin and
Sandusky City. For so doing motion
was recently made for an Attachment
ard an order of Sequestration of the
proner,y of the company, and was heard
at Chambers, by Judges Barley, Ols
and Slarkwealher, Judge Barley giving
the opinion. Judge B. held that. the
order mado by Judge Corwin, as afore'
said, was a nullity. He therefore or
dered that it be stricken from the files
and the record thereof erased, and an
Attachment issued against Judge LANE
President, and Z. r. Osborn, Superin,
tendent ofihe Mad River and Lake Erie
Railroad Company. for disobeyng the
Injunction of las, April, reiunable TO the
next term of the District Court of Huron
county. ..........-..
The Sandusky Mirror says:
"I1ow does the case now stand?-
Judges Corwin and Barley are boil
members of the highest Court in 'ht
State; they have equal authority, and
: so far us official position is concerned
r their opinions are entitled to eqna
J weight, If Judge Corwin is righ:, lh'
r Mad River Company can safely conllnu
the use of the road, so important 10 tn
: interests of the public, and, at this time
. 80 indispensable 10 the transaction Of tn
; business of The Company, If Judg
: Barley is right, the Injunction. notwill
y standing the order of dissolution b
: Judge Corwin, is still in force; and nc
3 only SO, but the defendants are infOrme
that any infrac ion thereof, may, BY an
! one Of The Judges of the Supreme Cour
BIZ punished in summary manner, an
S the in,ima,!on is very strong that at leos
g one of the Judges Of that Court will nc
: hesitate to exercise the full power OF tn
q Court for that purpose. .... .-.....
The impropriely--to characterize tn
ruling Of Judge Barley by no slronge
: term-in thus placing the parties liligar
v in such situation that they must, unde
!, The penalties of Imprisonment, adopt III
: opinion upon n question OF law in oppcs
e ton to the opinion Of Judge of eqn
II horityjudicialy expressed in the cast
: is, 10 us, very apparent.
4 But there is another feature in tn
; case which strikes US as somewhat pc
culiaf. r- a,s- .-t s. ,'r
:. The decision recently made in Clev'
land, is not made by the Supreme Coul
in which the suit is now pending, nor is
+ made by the District Court of llure
!, county, in whose custody are the recoro
: Of the case. 1t was simply the exelcl'
- of chamber powers, that was invoke
y - and the fact that two or all of the Judg
" Of the District Court were present, coui
: it seem to us, add nothing TO the pow
: which one Judge might lawfully exercis
= Under such circumstances one wou
suppose that Judge Barley would ha'
- been satisfied by holding that the ord
4 maze Dy JuuDc '(Ot Wih " ~ 49,
y y and void. This, certainly, would ha
u been sufficient if the only purpose hi
= been TO inform The defendants that Il
- - Injunction was still in force and tba, OBJ
- dience to its provisions would be require
A. But the Court at Cleveland, or rath
nt The Judges there-and how many of the
'. concurred in the ruling above referred
we arc not informed-were not sa'lsfl
j. with this They went further In
n. not only held the deliberate action OF
o. Judge of the highest tribunal in 4
I'd State, 10 be unauthorized and void, b
,e they undertook TO strike from the lies
s. case pending in the Supreme Court
the State, paper, which one of 4
n. Judges of that Court, in the exercise
an the powers conferred upon him by Ia
.e- had ordered TO be placed there; and
o, mutlate the records of the District Co
Of Huron county. overwhich the! neItl
les individually tcollectivelS, excerpt VIII
nd sitting as the District Court in =
nd county, had any more control than
tir. private citizen. And with what mot
of this was done-whether for the benz
Of Of Judge Co,win, Or to affect the rig
% | uc ,I,o ,,r,;os l;,;o,nt ,ya laaye oihf