Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-03-24
The AldcrHey Dairy Case.

WHY Mr.. F. 4. WARD HAS NOT oREYEp THE prcREr
Or THE CoUHT-HIs EFFORTS To OBTAIN A PLACE
FOR HIS BUSINESS.
In the Court in General Term to-day the Alder
ney Dairy injunction case Of Walter ct al against
Frank X. Ward, OF the Alderncy Dairy was UP
again on a rule issued against respondent 10 show
cause why he should not he adjud5ed guilty of con
tempt In not removing his dairy. The Injunction
granted In October last decreed that The horses and
stables should be removed by the 9th of March.
The norses, however. remained there. and a ruie
was lld on Mr. Ward. "ho To-day appeared In
compliance therewtth-MessrS. ". ID. DlNi.lge and
X. r. Perry appearing for him and Mes,rs. Riddle.
and Davis for the colnpainantS.
The answer WAS presented. stating that Mr. Ward
had used his utmost 10 secure place To stable his
horses, and had tailed. and had been cndeay yoring
TO find place for his business. bIt had also failed
and had entered into negotiations To purchase
property on street, between 9Th and 10Th streets
northwest but failed 10 obtain the consent of the
neighborS 10 locate there-two parties object Ing
This would have involved an expenditure nl sl5ntl
and he did not care TO make contract whore Iber.
any doubt as TO whether he could remain
Looking elsewhere he had succeeded in purchasing
lots AT Sd street and Indiana avenue. where he had
Intended 10 erect a building, but on application to
the Commissioners for permit IL was refused un-
less he would promise not 10 have horses I'm the
building. Mr. Ward further states that n cOnse-
quence of these circumstances he has been unable
10 remove his horses and obey the decree OF the
court He says he is trying to secure a place, and
VIII remove as soon as possible.
THE DECREE MUST BE oBEYEp.
The chief justice asked: "How much time IS
needed? You can't run into the summer, and the
decree has to be obeyedn
Mr. Perry said they did not want to remain there
all summer. but they ought to be allowed anoi her
chance. Mt. Ward had made honest efforts TO 10
cate elsewhere, and had not succeeded, but he In
tended to obey the decree.
Mr.Davis said the defendant had had five months
notice, which was sufficient. He did not wish TO
appear pushing Mr.. Ward for punishment for
contempt He thought that he had had time to
make the removal. and he could hot appear to be
conSenting to delay.
The chief Justice.-"He has got to get out and It
would appear that he Is trying TO get out. This Is
no small movement. and cannot be done i'm a lew
hours. What do you think about II, Mr. Dayis."
Mr.. Davis declined To express an opinion
Mr. Day1dge said this was a case for conmlspra-
ton, and not for punishlnent-a case OF a man in
curing penalty without the intention to do
out Mr.. Ward had already completed the purchas..
OF property ON ID, near 10Th street.
BAD FOR THE MILK.
The chief Justice asked where.
Mr. Davidge replied: "Near the newspaper Of
1ceSn
The chief Justice.-"The milk ought then to CON-
plain"
Mr. Davidge said the question was whether Mr.
to remov0at minimum loss. He thought it would
be q hardship TO refuse to give him the months of
April and May to remove
The chief justice said the decree must be obeyed
and Mr.. Ward wanted TO do IL. He thought that a
few days more would not hurt any one III i'm
pressed the court that Mr.. Ward wished 10 comply
and they wanted to give linn all the time they could
They would postpone furtle consideration TN MAY
Sd, and In the meantime they would see what the
defendant would do towards removing.