New-York tribune., 1881-03-25
THE TELEGRAPH SUITS.
MIR, HAToRs TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.

MR.. HATCRS TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
AparMeNTs IN REGARD TO CONTINUING THE BE-
srRAtsiSc oRDER-rHH CASE SUBMITTED TO
THE JuDGE--THg MATTER OF CONTEMPT
The argument before Judge Speir on the
motion for continuance Of the temporary i1uuc'ioh
made in the OF Ruius Hatch against the teesrAp
companies was concluded yesterday. A D. 'ahuerpoe.
smoke for the companies He said the argument
ed by Mr. Beach Wednesday had very maIeriaiy nai
rowed the points for discussion involved inthe case MI
Beach had conceded OF the legal propositions eo
tended for by Mr. swayne and Judge Ddlon ana
especially that the decision Of Justice Barrett mane IN
the suit brought by Mr. Hatch in the Supreme Court was
conclusive on the plaintiff to the right OF the COM
nanies TO unite their interests an1 consolidate ther
lInes This ives an admission Of the defendants ente
case The decision OF Justice Barrett eoVereu every
question raised between the parties to thaS suit auu
must be considered as res adi~dcata IN ne" SUR SUR
between the same persona. Mr.. Williams Id MS SUI.
ogans the companies had only to await the force Oh
Jusee Rarretts decision but Mr.. Hatch in new SUIT
AGAINST the same defendan had not only 10 destroy the
effect of q decision, but also of q Judgment
Mr.. yanderpoel dwelt with considerable inslstency
upon point and cited authorities to show that
decision OF motion made after full argument on all
the merits involved IN the be regarded, IL
collateral action between parties, having the
same binding force as o judgment. Mr. Hatch might
have appealed from the decision OF Justice Bdrretl nc
might have had it reviewed in the action in any OF
the forms Of procedure known 20 the law He had not
chosen to do 90, but had brought another vexau0us
suits he bound by the decision OF Justice
Barrett then he would bo bound by the decision OF
the Court in this suit aad coud into the Court OF
Common Pleas and bring st another suit or indeed go
TO every Judge in the State and obtain successive
temporary igjunctions. Mr. Beach bad claimed
that the contract OF January 10 not yet executed
because the property Of the American Union and At
lantc and Pacific Companies though delivered to the
Comn0nY had been paid f0rt
doctrine had before been heard or ana
therefore Mr. Beach bound by his admission th az
sSssd s e aa Ss Ssse esse Mr. reviewed Mr.
Hatchs conduct prior and subsequent 10 ne agreemen
aaSS 1nS IN court Of equity in his present suit than he
had declared TO have by Justice Barret, IN the Tor
OF the western Union Company by the purchase Of the
property OF the other companies for the purchase heu IN
less than he had admitted it actually worth All
the facts then. showed that ne trying to evade the
process Of the Court. which would not be tolerated
vsndepoe then Ea@e 59e nc ne by the
Western Union Company TO represent its surplus earn
ngs accumulated during the last sixteen nrohb
tion poratior had full power to issue such STOCK
Money wheh % might Tdrs Gay sS ossP BEEN invested in prns
nent improvements, and the money thus diverted from
aaent time be taken the capital fund and returned
the shareholders Il not necessary thst tns pay
cash, but it could 90 made in capital stock u
they were willing to accept 1t In that
Eneiapd and in the Yarioas States OF this county which,
he claimed established beyond controversy the right 0f
sS seSneS % n the Of S business n
reply the argument that II the Western Union Com
many could stock represent It's surplus
earnings, the American Union Company would receive
much more for it's property than under tne O
ment provided that this COMPANY was TO receive
ySa oa sne e. no oS.taSe To- the
due execuiaen Of me CONTRACT even n nssa n e
final disposition OF the case.
In an action like the present. the speaker continued.
sop ana any mtter that would be defence 70
q suit by the corporation was equally fatal To the PLAIN
paDy exceeded is authority In makng the contested
coDtract still It was wesetted law that could NOT
that In the present case had become Impossible MI
Vanderpoe finally referred TO Ar Beacns declaration
tiat when the Of corporation exceeded fair
interest It's capital the excess belonged 10 the puDc
he said that the doctrine contained 10 Ine
ton. would overurn the whole is9rc OF civil sociey
French Revolution in 1883 and which gave birth TO
Mr.. sewel on behalf Of Mr. Hatch. followed Mr. Van
derpoel aud closed discussion He argued that Mr.
Hatcb's IN this st astockhoder OF the West
thing which be had done or which had boen decided in
course OF the tee graph litigation lie denied 10 lu'
of the Court" Mr. HaIch ne said had obey ed the D.
vine behest 70 compound with his adversary In regard
estOppei which had been urged by the
counsel for companies bar 10 Dir. Hatehs right
Injunction, Mr. SsNell declared tnat All thAt nad
been said by them NOISE Without real force or
meaning He SURPRISED that counsel had tie temerty
TO say nterlVcutOry order III one case An
order instance which was not appeaabe 70 the
Court Appeals could be regarded az al estoppe IN An
OtDer suit. .
When Mr. sewen had spoken for some time upon the
general doctrine OF estoppel he was interrupted 6y hr
Swayne, who said that the only Rr0nhd Of es0ppel
which had commended for by the counsel for The
companies grew out Of the consideration that II was
Mr. Hatohs equitable duty to dscloso Ia his first bill ali
the grounds on which be based his claim relief which
duty he hsd violated in co1coaling the fact wben he
brought his In tho Supreme Court, that no was
aso a stockbolder Of the Western Union Company. Mr.
sewell replied that the position now taken by Dir.
Swayne entirely 20 him, and had never before
been suggested the course OF the argument He con-
cuded by reassertDg that the Issue OF the S15OOOO0O
OF new represent the surplus earnings OF the
Western Union Company was not within the powers OF
the corporation and Void this of const
tuted integral pa.t OF the contract OF January 49,
and that therefore II followed by logical necessity that
the whole contract became incapable OF execution.
The case then submitted 10 Judge speir, VINO re-
served his decision.
The hearing on the motion TO punish the companies
for contempt In dsObeying the terms OF Judge Sedg
wieks injunction order adjourned until Saturday.