The New York herald., 1876-11-24
The Effort to Consolidate the Rival
Harlem Steamboat Companies.
Application to Enjoin the Contem-
plated Consolidation.
Continuation of the Argument in the
Booths Theatre Case.
Using Kerosene VitiatiOn Of Fire Insurance
Contract.

Some twenty-five years ago . company calling itself
tho Harlem and New York Navigation Company cstab-
lishcd limo OF steamboats, between Harlem aud Peck
slip, making, however, two three intermediate
landings About Two years ago rival limo was csab-
iishcd calling itself the Morrsania Steamboat Com
pany. Botwccn these competing limos therc has been
great rivalry, but tho Morrisania nc alleged, has
boon unable to crowd or tho other no is stated TO
have been It's original purpose, and instead has found
Its enterprise not altogether paying Altogether
II deemed desirable TO consolidate the two CON-
panics, and, rs stated. arrangements were madc
to this effect when application madc
by William Watson, or the stockholders Of
the Harlem and New York Navigation Company,
for injunction to cnjoin the consummaton
OF the contemplated consolidation. A temporary In
junction granted With order TO show cause why
the same should not bo made permanent Upon this
order there extended argument yesterday,
before Judge Lawrence, IN supreme Court Chambers,
cxJudgo Cardozo appearing for Mr.. Watson, Mr..
Anderson appearing Tor the old steamboat limo and Mr.
Harrington ior the opposition Inc. Numerous aiI
dnvs OF the directors and other officers OF the two
companies wcro read, aud alter tins there was gen.
crai presentation OF the leading points Of the conro
yersy on both sides. cx-Judgc Cardozo making tho
opening argumcnI Hc contcndcd that the proposed
combination was clearly illegal aud contrary 10
thc statutes authorizing the charter tor tho Harlem
aud New York Navigation Company. This statute
provided that the company should hot combine with
any other company for any purpose whatever. Read
the Harlem and New York Navigation Company had
agreed with tho opposing company 10 alter It's tlmc
tables und Other arrangements, tending to show
combination within tho meaning OF tho statute II
WIS argued on tho other hand that the scheme had
been openly talked about and discussed by tho stock
holders and tho directors Tor some mc prcvious that
tho agreement was not combination III tho I'll sense
III which tho word is universally used was simply
entered into for the convenience OF the travelling pub
lie, who werc afraid that accident would result
from the dangerous opposition carried on between tho
opposing companies. II aiso stated that the pro-
the stockholders OF both companies and would result
to the public good.
Alter lengthy argument Judge Lawrence took the
papers, rcscrving his decision.
"BOOIH'S" THEATRE CASE.
Argument in the suit brought by Mr.. Edwin Booth
against Mcssrs. Jarrett & Palmer restrain them
from the use OF tho name Booths" In conncc.
ton with the theatre known heretofore by that name,
and OF which tho defendants tho lcssccs cou-
tnucd and concluded before Judge Van Brunt, IN Com
mon Pleas, Chambers yesterday. On behalf of tho
defendants, and in opposition to the mo,ion for the
temporary injunction asked for. Mr. Benjamin T. Rus
sell argued that Mr.. Booth never had any exclusive
right TO the name "Booth" that II he had such
right, he had named the theatre In question booths"
Theatre, and had leased rs such to Junls b. Booth;
that, with plaintiffs assent. defendants had become tho
assgnecs Of that lease, and such assignment carried
with II tho right to the OF the under winch
the theatre leased that paintin entitled
the relief he asks, and that, should be finally
discovered that tho plaintiffs rights have been preu-
diced by the OF the ramc which defendants deny,
they are abundanty able to respond in the amount OF
damages.
Mr. Charles H. Tweed appeared to represent the ex-
ccutors OF the late Oukcs Ames, who owned the prop
crty having purchased u under foreclosure salo OF
mortgage 10 him. He claimed that the of the
properly had right TO have !: known and described
'.Boothsp Theatre, aud tnat tho granting oi tho
temporary injunction now asked for ny Mr. Booth
would DO fatal TO the rights OF the properly
The right to tho Of this Mr. Tweed placed
tho ground that Mr. Booth had leased the property
under that name had assigned his interest In under
that name, MS such had morguged It, and as such 1t
purchased nj the foreclosure sale. Tho had
thus become part Of tho property and important
10 II und its value
Mr. Luke A. Lockwood proceeding to reply on
the part Of Mr.. Booth, when Judge Van Brunt called
hs attention 10 tho iact that IN his judgment, the i'm
pornut question In the was that plaintiff having
called the premises "Boothsn Theatre, and having
leased and conveyed them SUCH why should not Tho
have the right to continue tho OF the name. On
this point Mr.. Lockwood aIgucd that there diff
ference between tho use OF the names Booth" and
Booths" The latter, by which the theatre In qucs
ton called. posscssive. nrd Indicated posses
sorry right tho part OF Mr. Booth. That possession
and all his with tho theatre long sinco
ceased and 1t could longer be properly said that IL
Booths Theatre. Even II Mr.. Booth had given
Junius b. Booth PERMISSION to the name. ho had
right to Withdraw that permission at any time
Judge Van Brunt said he wished 10 have tho lease TO
Junius Booth handed TO him. and, taking the papers,
reserved his decision.