New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-09-15

crime, or to enforce the performance of .
moral duty, except 90 far a. the same il
concerned with rights to property; nor can
it interfere on the ground of any criminal
offense committed, or for the purpose of
giving better remedy in the case of .
criminal cffense. or for putting . stop to
acts which, if permitted, would lead to Q
breach Of the pesce." In the case of
vol. 8, p. "a, the same doctrine is laid
down. The court holds that court of
chancery has no jurisdiction to restrain the
publication of . libel by injunction upon
bill fled by the party whose character or
business" will be injured by the publica-
ton; that an Injunction to restrain Q pub
lication can only be granted in cases
where the publication will interfere
with the complainant's rights either
Of literary or other property in
s3H saSst %atss @. ee'
conclusion, "as the publication Of the work
which is sought to be eDjoined can not be
considered as an invasions OF the rights Of
either literary or medical property of the
complainant, although it is intended a. q
gross libel upon him personally, this court
mas no authority, no Jurisdiction to inter-
fere for his protection" In the case Of the
may or, ETC., of Hudson vs. Chorue. Lsige
Rep. 364. the same learned jurist had al
stating that lit is NO part of the business of
a chsncery court to enforce the penal laws
of the State, or the bylaws of q corpora
ton, by injunction, unless the act to be
restrained is nuisance" Eden on injunc-
tions, p. 67, maintained the same precept:
If q charge be Of criminal nature,
or IAN Offense against the public"
and does not touch the injoyment of
property, it can not be brought within
the direct jurisdiction Of courts Of
chancery, which are intended to deal
where the remedy at law is not sufficiently
adequate" High on Injunction, section
twenty-three, says: "The subject matter of
the Jurisdiction of equity being the protec-
tiOn of private property, and of civil rights,
courts of equity will not interfere for the
punishment or prevention of merely crimi-
nal or immoral acts, unconnected with VIC
lation of private rights. Equity has has no
jurisdiction to restrain the commission of
crimes and offenses, or to enforce moral
obligations and the performance of moral
duty" nor will interfere for the prevention
of an illegal act merely because it is illegal;
and in the absence Of any injury to prop
erty rights, ''it will not lend it's aid by in
junction to restrain the violation of public
or penal statutes" In sase of Attorney
General vs. Utica, etc, 2 JObnson's Chan
Gerry Rep, 81, Chancellor Kent, holding
the same doctrine a. before quoted, ex-
presses himself in the following per-
suasive language: IF charge be Of q
public. and does not touch the enjoyment
OF property, it ought not to be brought
within the jurisdiction of this court, which
was intended to deal only in matters of
civil right, resting in equity, or where the
remedy at law is not sufficiently adequate.
"The PLAIN state of the case," says Chan
cellor Kent, 'is that IN information is here
filed by the Attorney General to redress
and restrain, by injunction, the ueurpatiOn
of franchise, which, if true, amounts to
a breach of law and of public policy" l
ton is without precedent" in this court.
How, then. can hesitate on 1.-The question
of jurisdiction Z" The whole question, upon
its merits, is one of law, and not Of equity;
and the "charge was too much OF the nature
of misdemeanOr to belong TO this court" F."
In the cases of Sparhawk vs. Union Passen-
ger Railway Cympany, and Kenton vs..
same, Pennsylvania State Reports. 4Ol 3,
the plaintiffs sllege that they are citizens
OF Philadelphia and pew holders in churches
on the line of the railway and owners and
IcSlUCuV0 OA OWClIuS hOucCo OA tAO LILO
OF said railway; that the company was
running cars with horse power and
carrying passengers for hire over their rail
way on Sunday, in violation of the law of
the commonwealth, and to the manifest in
jury of the plaintiff and many other citizens
Of the said city; that by reason of the said
unlawful business of said railway company,
plaintiffs have been, are and will be de-
prived of their rights of enjoying tho Sab
bath as day of rest and Of religious ex-
ercise, free of all disturbance from merely
ployment; they further state that the rights
Of property which they possess in their
churches and in their private residences are
and will continue to be thereby lnfringed
upon, and their said churches aud resi-
dences thereby deteriorated and lessened
in value, and they pray for an in
junction restraining the Union Passen ger
Railway Company of Philadelphis from
or permitting any cars to run over
any Of the streets Of the city Of Philadel-
phis on the said railway or otherwise. ON
the first day of the week, commonly called
sunday. Kenton, the other complainant,
alleges that he is q stockhOlder of that same
company, being the holder of five shares of
its capital stOck; that the defendants have
been engaged in the business Of rum
ming their oars, and carrying passengers for
hire on and over their railway, on Sundays,
in violation OF the laws OF the common
wealth; that bv reason of said unlawful
acts of the defendants, the charter of said
Union Passenger Railway Company. has
come to be imperiled, and the plaintiff,
kenton, and such other stockholders as may
unite with him in his bill of complaint,
are in danger of losing the value
Of his or their stock in said company, and
being otherwise injured; and said Kenton
prayed also for an injunction. Preliminary
lnjunctions having been granted as nisi
prius. the orders of that court we're reversed
BY the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
lift is supposed" says Chief Justice Wood
ward, in his reasons for reversing the Or
1ers of the inferior court, that because an
sct is illegal merely, equity will interfere
equity Jurisdiction" ''If an act be illegal"
,ays Chancellor Kendersley, II sm not to
grant an Injunction to restrain an illegal act
merely because it is illegal. could not
yrant an Injunction to restrain Q man from
'muggling, which is an illegal act." Nor
could he for any merely criminal or penal
# ,nse. Injunction is civil remedy, adds
thief Justice Woodward, to arrest or pre-
rent civil abuses, when granted at the in
tance of q private party. Because worldly
employment on Sunday is interdicted by
reason, any moro than in the case put
" Chancellor Kendersley, why We should
Interfere to prevent it. The "pensl law
bat is violated is provided with the ma
hinery for Furnishing it, and to it the vio-
alton must be referred. One reason why |
quity can not interfere is that there is .
emedy at law by statute, and We must |
resume it adequate, for it is what the law |
as provided and no more. If an illegal |
ct ''could" be restrained because a"pub- |
c" nuisance, it would only be at the in |
tance of "some one authorized by the |
and not by private party"
he bills of the plaintiffs. Sparhawk and |
1enton, states the Chief Justice Wood
zard. contain but charge OF tho viz RtiQn |