New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-03-13
THE DECREE IN THE PAGE CASE.


aud the Western Union Telegraph Company are
given below.
THE DECREE IN THE PAGE CASE.
STRIKING ARRAY or COUNSEL ATPcAEs BEFORE
JUDGE Observation-Disclosures rING DISCUSSION.
BUT No RESULT REACHED.
Judge Blatchford yesterday listened to ar
gumen,s on notiols for a settlement Of the decree in
the case OF Page against the Holmes Burglar Alarm
Company which recently decided in favor OF the
plaintiff. Edward y. DekersOn and Edward y. Decker
son, jr. appeared for the plaintiff; David Dudley Field
William Dorsheimer ana Leonard Myers for the Amcr-
can Union Telegraph Company; exJudge Dillon
for the Union Pacific Railroad; General Swayne
for the Wabash Railroad and c. f. Pohemns Tor the
defendant In the absence Of Everett p Wheeler Mr.,
Dlckerson moving for the decree in the usual way
said that 1t announced that the wabash Union
Pacific and Baltimore and Ohio Railroads and he thought
also the Pennsylvania Railroad desired to appear and
No heard ia the case He suggested that they into
the case in a formal manner. He had not been served
with any papers showing that these corporations were
Interested.
Mr.. Field said that the decree which had been sub
nitted departed from the regular rule in that 1t bad
Bindings. I'VE suppose" said he. " that when it is
made to appear your Honor that the claims OF the
decree involve the telegraph Of the whole coun
wy and If enforced would stop every railroad corpora
ton that has telegraph lines from using them
That you would modify the decree. Putting
IL on these grounds alone. we would sug-
rest that a clause be inserted by which the decree
should not prejudice persons who now repre-
,ented here in any other litigation. hope that my
learned friend the other side viii not object TO that
Mr. Dickerson-well, certainly shall.
Ex,Judge Dillon said that the first objection TO the
decree was based on the rule Of the Supreme Court
which prohibited the introduction OF findings. For the
use which it was apprehended would be made OF the
decree they were especially sOlictous that nothing
should be introduced which was not in the usual prae
lice He objected TO the second finding in every respect
This stated that Page was the original ANA hrst inventor
OF the patent. The Court had only passed on
three claims out OF fifteen. He urged that
II was proper case Tor pursuing the same cour,e
as the Supreme Court p1rsued in the case OF Cochane
against Deener. He then gave history OF that patent
suit which was decided in October 1877, and SAID that
the present analogous to IT, He asserted that
il had been gwen that if the decree was made final
everybody engaged in the telegraph business III the
country would be arrested The persons Interested In
the telegraph business had had no opportunity " lie
heard in the The real complainant IN the SUIT
was the Western Union. and the object was to serve
writs OF injunction throughout the country he SAID
he hai no objection to the Western Uui0ns reapng the
fuIl fruits OF the decree he did want them 20
make it the basis for attacking other corporations.
Mr. Dickerson replied that the proposition OF his oppo
nens amounted to ths That in every decree under the
patent only the defendant should be aectedhat the de
cree shou be binding any else Their argument
therefore don't give any such decree" He argued
tnatlt was like any other decree patent The Oh
ect OF the railroad companies for fear OF suit against
them was have the decree modified so that tie Union
Pacific and the Wabash should be excepted. "They
want decree modified that it viii not apply to them
and they will not be subject 10 the Same legal conse
ouencss that the of the world is 1t is no
heeause they are large corporations and retain emf
nen counsel that the decree should not apply To them
tad IL " a
have a defence, let them show IT,"
Judge BatcnfOrd SAID that there was nothing In the
ion the to him by winch he could con
lecture that had not been ably and fully presented
the lower Court had decided against the validity of
patent aud the higher Court reversed the decision. II
was proven that there had been cOusion aud the
case was nOdn fed If 1t was TO be taken as an anao-
gous ease wonid have TO be proven 1t might
Involve the parties TO inc SUIT OF IL ign' mVoiVs INC
counsel the Court There must be some agree
men by which the defendant nd not present toe case III
The way IL might have been presented. IL would be
stretch Of authority for the Court 10 instruct other
Courts unless there we're proofs showing Some reason
for IT, pa,o said that tbev had come prepared with eff
aayts which he thought wOuo gave some proof why toe
rase should be heard He then handed an "fnaavit TO
MI. DickersOn then Jumped to Ms feet WIN much e1-
ritement aud said il the aftdavits contained III
snread about he desired deny t1em immed atey " IL
Is as gross libel has ever been uttered ne de-
clared. .s,o, a.. so,ua.,,
In the absence Of Mr. Wheeler ne drciared tna 9odg
s,on whatever. No such statement could De MADE ana
he
Ssaie De 's'D''' - '"'s s a s..,,,9. %,
coiuson. We have leard them for Two weeks IN Wall
ST. aud they scandalous ,,
Nv Feid-There is no occasion for such warmth.
Judge Blatenford broke of the discussion by saying
thai colusion might be alleged and the proof nicnt tail
short of it, 1t would necessarily involve both par
ties 10 the suit and also counsel III might TAKE various
shapes II ght be said tina the case was no presented
a. az full and cOmplete manner IL might have been
In there had been COLLISION there must Oe some dspar-
Mr.. Field then asked permission TO withdraw the an
(which had notyet been read by eher the Judge
took back the affidavit. ,
ease had been lmperfectly presented bal they would
aiege collision whatever. ..,..,, .,.,....
Mr. Dickerson-Oh, there Is no doubt ABOUT the inter-
ests this affects IL touches everybody using
Jndss Diilon-weI If you get a decree after
al H. J. wl be REei'y Ri TPS Set V QUE
Judge Batchford then suggested what the petition
shouId emOodv and said that 1t should be handed TO
him before it was served. He might not be satisfied
The case was adjourned for weeks, when the
petition will be presented.
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO SUCCESSFUL.
DEFEAT OF TUE ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC COMPANY
IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGE CULTS.
Chief-Judge Curtis, of the Superior Court,
Yesterday gave his decision the motion made by The
defendant the SUIT OF the Atlantic and Pacific Tele
graph Company against the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-
road Company TO set aside all the proceedings IN the
cause on the grounds OF of jurisdiction and regu
laity OF service The motion under an order OBJ
tanned by the plaintiff for John W. Garrett the president
of the defendant show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt in dsobeying the injunction OF
the Court restraining him and the employees Of the de
fendaut from interfering with the telegraph lines Oh the
plaintiff along the defendants railroad lines.
Judge Curtis grants the motion TO dismiss the pro-
ceedings This dsposes not only OF the alleged CON
tempt but also OF the injunction and the question as to
whether the defendants had the right to seize tue plain
tifs lines at any time the company should choose to
do a. After recitng the proceedings and a layits pre-
sented the Judge saysi