The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1879-12-08
The Hon. Jim Mason anu His PsEry-
The Case Before the Court Of Appeals.
WHEELING. December O.

Editors lntellEeBeer
II the article in this mornings lSTELL-
oENcER, entitled illegal Breeze" was
correct, then, the well known faculty" Of
Mr., Faulkner, referred to by you, however
utilized" would hardly be enough to
prevent the members Of the Harper's Fer.
ny Bridge Company from becoming &C.
quainted with the inside OF the prison, to
which Mr., James NJ, Mason invites them.
Without further referring to the article
in question, allow me to give you version
of the affair that Is correct, and that will
show you how absurd the charge Is, that
the Iarper's Ferry Bridge Company IL
acting In violation Of an Injunction OF the
Court Of Appeals.
Mr.. Mason, filing his bill, procured from
the County Court Of Jefferson county, All
injunction enjoining the Bridge Company
from proceeding with the construction Of
their bridge-the penalty OF his injunC.
ton bond being five hundred dollars
The case was Immediately removed 10 the
Circuit Court, and then, on motion, In va
cation, Judge HOge ordered that the PEN
atty OF Mason's bond be increased 10
twenty-five hundred dollars, the new
bond to be given in twenty days, or the
injunction to stand dissolved, Il may
here add that this bond was not given,
and so the injunction In the case was dis
sOlved.)
To this action Of Judge Hoge, Mr.. Mason,
for reasons, or alleged reasons, that it are
inmaterial 10 mention, excepted, and pro.
cured from the Court Of Appeals a super.
sedeas. Now 10 make this supersedeas
effective and operative II was necessary
that a bond should be given, and service
he made on the defendants. But Mr.. Ma
son did none Of these things AS soon as
he procured this supersedeas he put 1t in
his breeches pocket and kept 1t there. In
the meantime, the suit OF Mason vs.. the
Bridge Company matured, and, by mu.
tual consent OF all parties, was argued on
bill, answer, exhibits and depositions-
that is, the whole case and all the issues
in it, and decree rendered that dismissed
the plaintiff, Masonic bill, on the ground
that there was no equity in 1t.
This you will say ended the case OF Ma.
son vs.. the Harper's Ferry Bridge Com.
| puhy -tlIhL lSi uuloSS al upHt7hl 10 t1Aeu "
tho Court Of Appeals, and ordinarily you
would be right. But ordinary extinction
no more effects Mr.. Mason than it does u
cat, tape worm, or a fungus. At this
iuncture-it will not be easy to credit'it.
but it is true-Mr. Mason takes from his
pocket the defunct supersedeas, above re.
ferred to, and serves 1t on the Bridge
Company, with the odd idea, that it was
still q living, operative injunction. Why!
II in such paper, and such post NOR
TEN proceeding there is any force, then,
to use language that has been used else
where, but that will bear repetition, We
may expect to hear OF man who has
been tried, and found guilty, and hanged,
coming from the grave, and making q mo.
ton to Quash the indictment.
need hardly say, that the Bridge Com
pany, advised by their counsel, disregard
ed the paper in question, and proceeded,
and are still proceeding, with the con-
struction Of their bridge.
The proceeding in the case, in the Court
OF Appeals this Saturday morning was
simply an application for q rule, that the
Bridge Company show cause why they
should not be punished for contempt OF
court, which, as matter OF course, was
granted, returnable on Saturday next,
Yours, &C., CHAs. DAWES,