, 1880-03-31
THE COURTS.
Decision by Judge Tu1ey In the
= Telegraph Case.
Tho Western Union Gets tho B. & 0. Wires
Back Under It's Control.
fhs Village of n5dt rark rtsus Tho Filth National
II Heavy Judgment.

Union Telegraph Company. This wns a bin hIcd
about three weeks ngo charging that tho Dnltt-
moro & Ohio 1,ond, In tho Interest Of tho Amer
fcan Union Telegraph Company, had wrun8fualy
sctzci possession of the llues Of tho Atlantic &
pucIno Compnuy a!ong its road, and refused to
surrcnder them up again. THO complainant
therefore asked for nn injunction to prevent
tho defendants interfering with ia property,
and for dccrco compelling them to deliver up
possession Of tho lines, ctc.
Aftor rovlowing tho facta In tho case at longth
Judge Tuloy said u was evident Tint nc To!o.
graph Company wis cxtromoly anxious 70 hayo
ps: a{ ~ see4 otsea s I'D sosG
Joint " psss;,tt'l9 psS;t'ns
tSss shs laitefF ccompsny. dcs5sa, d, 1. q
moneys mo- IN tho oreotion II hey poles. wires. etc..
and To make connections With defentlnnts Wires
qSo ~ A. nost1 20 ' s i
without tho Railroad Company haytng 1efnttly
committed Itself as to the terms of tho tolnt nr-
il n bisiticss point Of view, but i could scarccly
81 81 eSafg. %ha4o II psres pess ncFotaon
one one notified hi the othor tint DO would proceed t.
III S % to the terms heretofore mae
q such other party, and such other party stood
seq sst &c sers ss rsfo ac
would ho held to be cluItNhly cstoppcd from DO.
s s sss s%s net s S spSs sS
be '1 should havo spoken, ho would not bo heard
TO sponk when he nhon[si bc silent.
form Of the psosco5tnR, eio tho Judge sald tho
main question wns hoy far eomplainaMMEs ~ caso
a. sa mSo Sdt ~ % the dcieu',anis, resed sbstaaay
upon tic atl!tAvits OF President Garrett. Of
70 Eail5oad Company, p!es!de9t seSs'n, EeSert,
snaans ne 1stSs hc.s aa 9ss Taey
rev1ewed at length, rcma1kinE ma nat m none .oo q
sn, s SSf Sfs e g
lie right of tho baltimore { OHIO Railroad Com.
pany to terminate tho agrcomcnt, to take pos.
sSs1sfos Sfp c n az a. s9 EeRe
avorrcl that the former had the right to to1ml-
taking pesscssion u Tho ,elcsranh properly and
paying therefor, .Gar1ctts AFFIDAVIT Mas Tint
wfs eat Te ns n1 SDa o s.
Igatory. MI. Gnrrett insisted TINT Il ho 30
pIcascd ho was to tako possession Of tho wires,
stS eos; 6St H. Eckert U eamed il lis e"s
that Nj. Garrett was to bo At liberty to take the
Dsvf q H. Bates tS ' ~Sd epea to or
clsm as being very broad and comprehonslvc.-
SSss sa ia, 9 g. nGSsE T4s! z cdE a
take possession of anothcr's property at any
for ii M aho eost % prlcc an, contraot sfv,ns tSe
right TO take possession Of nnothors property ut
d ,7st pss;ss so Ssry gSss sssrsns ssFsss ee
Fsss eosson IN suDsssuess sss SH' in so ta wa a
passed in tic ea one easc, a The debt roinalrc:
"a asfs ssf aa @ s seEsIs sy hs
spesslvs a'aaSiss % H. TO @ MINIS q tse eSarsstiss
parties had fnllcd to mcet upon vital point.
The most reasonable agreement was, that pay
Eont should prccedo Of ct least ,e se concitlen.t
shS ES for z m eS ths
hls Honor. OF so extraordinary q nature and 50
@ e. e c saoat If a sst ns Ell
payment WAS to be made upon taking pos.
less;en, and , = W. TO a., 30 ., payment a
% piainant had failed to sustain tho allegation "a
1as ySas e. EsS ss q sfsa 5
thG nC nnd ~ e shS Scav r e
eee sho
10 light to Insist on reasonable notico Of tho
Jutcntlon to terminate tho agEoouicnt;. yet tho
fess a ho Il
road Company WAS not bound 70 givo any prior
as " aoeo Hss ss s
The Judge then proceeded to discuss tho qucs-
ehe Sasnoeo sH ohe Gonpany haa as
right reserved. clNttned, It was, nevcr thetcss
10 DO pXGtgl8QA WILL lttO IlUSIAu AllNGElftuH
sSoa Z fai!h + w assssd y tho dstspisats G Int
eaeneos, ana lint i WIS no matter Il COM
tae Court could DOT consider tho conscqnonces.
Tint Vas true Is q legal proposition. n9t court
s na
gal right tn discovcr II possible whether tho right
had boon czcrclscd In good faith ar whether the
tho act. Tho arrangement. bctvcon tho Com
panos was In the nAluro Of a c0partnorshtp or
bS1p
fST h9 bs1s n " s6s ont
sssary Of, its tormlnadon Tilt tho isaiiros Com
pany should own al of tho property. aud for tho
tSas sGis powSr 70 to" ternina}o s tho joiat u.
d tak b snqUd ,o1 H.
3atth, 1t must be sustained: .-......,
Tho primary object OF tho power reserved 70
itwas not to enable the iiailroad Company to o.
tain an unfair advantage over the Telegraph
Ct ensee
5Sss { 81 F1 4 ssy y 6 ss % ssd e
faith for its own psotcotion and bcncilt. No
cause ot eomPlaint appeared . exist aRatnst
contract xas terminHtod 9a arrangement wns
%aao Cad With a,I rlvHl Talsgrapph, Company "
sS o oaersso aenS y Il to sG% u
tion7 Did good faith resort 10 deceit and fraud
70 enable It p exercise a. clear M Legal right: ~
TeSa p taken ssrsa anS Sn nu9
1stsd elsewhere, but could not Do justii!et. BY
sshss S ssn' tbe1oo4s bs s1s' Lila ia ss xe IF o
powor 10 terminate tho agreement existed, It