New-York tribune., 1880-03-10
working heartily for the success OF the festival.
make IL bc tcr than OF it- rred"cessOrs.
THE ThLEGRAPH C0YFLIOE
long ARGUMENTS IN COURT.

Inc sun OF tIe AlllDIlC anu dCluC lel>
cgraph Company against the Baltimore and Ohio Rail
road Company brought restrain the defendant com
pany from sozug or holding The telegraph lines along
the route " the railroad which were claimed by the
plaintiff came up before Judge Curtis in the Superior
Court yesterday. John W. Garrett the president Of the
defendant company, was served at the Windsor Hotel
on February 2s with the injunction order in the suit
Issued By Judge Curis The plaintiff claimed that IN
violation OF this order the employees OF the defendant
had seized the wires and apparatus Of the plaintiff on
Sunday, February 20. ana obtained order for Mr..
Garrett to why no should not be punished
for contempt Yesterday motion was made by the de-
fendant aside all the papers and proceedings In
the cause.
The argument was conducted in quiet way, scarcely
any other persons being in the room besides the officers
and the attorneys and counsel in the cause. Mcdaniel
and Louher appeared the attorneys for the plaintiff
Joseph H. Choatc and Everett p. Wheeler OF counsel
G. f. BaUerdOTf attorney for the defendant, Messrs
Field, Dorshemcr. Bacon and Deys, of counsel Dudley
Field opened the argument for the defendant. He
viewed the principal statements Of the complaint ver
fed February %. Among these were the ayermenIs
the defendant In 1875 was and since then had been
mann gng certain raj road lines In various Staes and
ia the District OF Columbia (the State OF New
York not being one OF the States) The dc
iendant had also certain telegraph poles aud
wires along its railway lines In 1875 the plaintf
sent To the defendant and received from It certain let
ters and telcgrams annexed to the complaint which
letters and kilograms resulted IN mt whereby
certain were done. Futher agreements NJ later
periods alleged and t was stated that the plantH
placed certain telegraph wires upon the defendants
poles and shared the expenses and receipts OF certain
telegraph Offices. An accounting 20 b. had between
the companies OF receipts and disbursements, but
mad not been satisfactorily settled The complaint
aycrred further that the defendant threatened to take
Possession OF said several lines OF telegraph Without
paying he cost o erecting the same or the gy ing notice
year stipulated by the contract referred To. Upon
this complaint ana The annexed letters aud kilograms
and some diidayit- tho Injunction wac granted.
Mr. Field claimed that the lauglaRe OF thc compliant
intended c" convey false impression ana to pcip
uate It'ud upon the Cout' l"o mora
SION sought to be conveyed was that
valid written agreement was entered mo belWeeh
The plaiuuH ana tne defendant whereby lhe PI"lu-
q became possessed Of great NUMBER OF lctBi |ph
lines the iitc 90 which was 20 remain ID u tlIi aicr d"
accounts hrt"ctu the TWO companies had 9eeu selIle'
and until after the expiration o. one years hoIce u!
the drlcr dar that the contract was To- hc dbosdcl
careful rA"lnalon OF lDo c"up pHlhl a"o"tu 'nt tncle
never was any written agreement or even pieituce
mutl thi, action trouShO that there was any writ
tch Heretmtht. Iht existence oI uhy g-o,ln'u' VIM.
ever matter of argument only Iuc vague a-rcf-
tons OF the comp we're BASED only upon uteroncrs
cerams were from tue pauuG, except aome lns Enih-
,gorc ans u-aut on th. raft OF tlr defend the
/ arrangements proposed Oy the plaintiff 80 tccgiam
agreement, ttd any uolcc 90 terminate tne proposed
/ Arrangement suou d Doe given of required.
showed 'Ac utter fis'y %. hr plaintiffs comuainI. TIE
only negotiations between thr ppiuuU aud defendant
]
G. f f. W ma. On rb, otter ilr Bofnci thcmi
have horur ,,-nruv That there was AWAY. distinct
uu4ti-fIuI tlai tlr rf.uuant might at any time
f,., ~. .Iu ui -r.l o., -.auA wfrs or lines as the
company .rn t,G rlr pauth Co use. aud thaf thcre
! never a-g'cuIUut t.It any uUI'c iu relation
i.lto -h.n.l e .lyru ol,r.d service of all the
,"r 81, d.. Dad ,r'.I ,,. .'I..-I Ilr, were s.r,,d
serving hcii prfouaed liat he clmc some business
win tue elevated roads rDe ujuucuou order was made
40 special Tenn uuu tuttriJie cyrtiuru cony ruoUd
/ llyo ,ecn frrd,. ehch w,-. not done;
/
/ Not rcclc tho Vfounis fog ITS i--ne. and
dd uot correspond to tar PRAYER oi the complaint Lur
hrr. this count had u'Jrscctou. os the defendant
na, ior,!-n corparinoa. No property of me defend.
was BOZ .hc state traveller Tho 5ctiou was ior1
AND uot tln-tory. Tho tectlpu po.'s ana "le- were
real beyond tnc nmle o Nc"-lorh hot oneoi the
transactions hitherto bad tla"n pace 10 tais state Ine
d'fnanut we olc. cofy"ra ,5'',aI no "fii , Si'
nud O.. president WIS caught 90 dlnner while on Two
days visit 90 New-lork
AnGUMFNrs ron THE PLAINIIPF.
Everett T. wnoclcr. IN replying for tho plaintiff char
u.tcrlzcd tho acts o. the defendant rs pirtical. lie
claimed that tlc Court bad perfect jurisdiction n the
case Uudcr tle Code the Jurisdiction extended 90 a
foreign corporations whose officers had been sctvcd
within the county 90 tle -1t ~ do ur-uc corpora
ton Sot only was Jurisdiction obtained hY service
apou tbc p4,s.rnt while he w's iu this city Tor the
business of the defendant. pu tho subject matter Of The
,outr0 rrsy WIS in part within me state. Tie service
oftao rapcrs was perfectly regular Tho persons who
served the iuucuou found Mr. Garrett in the ha of
tnc Windsor Hotel as Eo was leaving tine dlungroom
iley old nm what tnc pap r' Hegc, aud SHOW cd Aim
the sIeulturr o. Judge Curtis. u was absurd To- say
t4t a,crs. person lu tue public ha ~ Motel was
nUt uDd ly fraud aud deceit. Ihs WAS prctoHce to
avoid mcrtcd puu-hucu ff contempt ~ tar order oi
tnr Court. As fo the Ottiffy OF thc form oi tEe
ORDER thc defendant had np u-b- 90 Dos ltai ON tl@
point until DO had purg aci 90 The contempt U there
Was auy MINOR error ihc Court could now amend it
Inc error did not 30 to the validity, but mcrry 90 te
rr,l arity of the order. There Was nothing for The
| court t1 DO bur 90 deny the motion 20 dsui-s.
Joseph II. Cnpntr continued tho argument for the
puu I ile ended that f the Court had Juri-dl'-
ton tur defendant could not take adFnuHtr "i any
lirceularIty the OI, providing That Mr. Garrett be-
came uRarr uf nature ~ the Injunction order
Mr. Garrett uckuoN edged tnt hc took nc papers 10 h.
room aud tucfo ptrltcd them. Tho United states Su-
ucmc Court had laid fowu the doctrine INT " oIlEh
corporation ild business Zoo another state did under
the condition of .uprcng itsc 10 thr Jurisdiction ANA
laws O thai state ana thr Court OF Appeals had gwen
/ .imar opinions Tuo defendant received freight ln
Tins city sold tickets here aud did other business M this
state 10 true that the subject matter OF the
suit real estate 40 another Siao; telegraph poles
and wires were personal property.
Mt. Durshclmcr-On, no. thcY are f''l estate.
Mr. Whcclcr-i happen To know positively thht they
| are taxed dis personal property m this state.
Mr. Chuatc tuht tYcni if they were rcal esthte
tho Court hid sufficient Jurisdiction over property That
wa this STATE sastg any fine that the Court
might INF G. Tor the contempt ot MIR. Garrett
M Dor-hruurr made answer fOl the dcfcndhnts ana
Judge Cnrtis took the papers, Tho argument lasted
nearly all day.