New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-09-24
IS MIR. STARIN IN CONTEMPT
THE DISPUTE AS TO THE STATEN ISLAND FERRIES
A TENTATIVE DECISION.

THE DISPUTE AS TO THE STATEN ISLAND FERRIES
TENTATIVE DECISION.
The motion to have John Ii. Starin and
william Clark adudged to be in contempt on the ground
that they have dsobeyed the Injunction order
made by Justice O'Gorman OF the Superior Court
a year ago, at the suit OF the Mayor, Alder
men and Commonalty IT this city, restraining these
defendants the Independent Steamboat, Company aud
Others from maintaining steam ferry between New
York and Staten Island. decided by Justice
Ingraham In the Superior Court Special Term yester-
day. The afdavs in support OF The motion set forth
thai the defendants Starin and Carkwho Is an engineer
employed tho steamboat ID. r. Martini have been
guilty Of contempt in running tha5 boat under the
charter obtained from tho State OF Jersey By Tho
New-Jersey Transportation Company. between New
York City and Staten Island An affidavit by
Richard a. Sorrs. Deputy Controller, declares
that by authority OF their ancient charter granted by
John MontgOmeric, Governor OF the Province OF Now
York. January IL. 1880, and by the statutes Of the
State OF New York he plaintiffs are possessed OF the
sole. full and whole power and authority settle, estab-
lsh appoint and direct any and all ferries around Man
hatans otherwise New York; IsaLd from said island to
any of the opposite shores all around said island; aud
that the city has leased the ferry 10 the Staten Island
Rapid Transit Company for $4,000 year AMI l44 per
OF the Gross receipts" Thomas Humphreys IN an
ali avit that Mr. Starln tod him that II he would
take hold aud the ferry he would furnish the boats nc
nominal price for nothing II necessary that Captain
aud it was concluded that it best to run petweel
New FORK and Elizabeth ard Constable Hook. n. j.. aud
take in Staten Island in that way order to avoid the
injunction He says that Howard Carroll. Mr. Sarins
son law, told him that Mr. Starin had sad TO him that
he would knock out That man Wman o. else Nc WOMB
knock himself out" IL il ar gcd By the cOmplauans
that Sir starin sold the ID. X Martin Captain Alfred
between Newly DIRK and staten s.aU touching ut points
10 New Jersey IA or'er to calm r!nts un@r the Shte
states ~srcsulaty internal commerce. taplan Stoney
paid only 5000 which was advanced to man for the
purpose. and Mr. Starin took mortgage or Si0OoO GA
the vessel fOI the rest of the purchase money.
Tue brief OF the deien lans maintains mat tue lDunc
tlon void as to all TIE parties because no notice was
given 10 tue corporation as Is required 10y tne s,,e'
that IN any event had not been violated because the
line that for which the staten Island Rapid
Transit Company obtained tue irancnise ana nn,ty,
that II this Mr.. Sariu mad M connection
win the company snd could not he punished or Wna'
A. b. Boardman and william W. McFariand Represented
the Corporation Counsel In urging the lu"tIOn, ana
Charles C. beanar behalf OF the defendants opposed
It, Mr. Beaman sai ais uniei standing was that bricfd
Hrrc hande'i in by both tides IN regard 70 tue
qucs ion o: jurisdiction and that the Court sh0nld alter
deciding tDat consider the otner questions la the case
Jastcc n-rsam sad he hai examined the question as
validity Of the I'M ncIlon order to some tent anu
thai he entertained coasieihO'G DOUBT ~ 10 us kmy
Evidently Justice O'GOrInaa when he Issued the ord
held thai IL valid aud he did not want u review the
decision OF that judge.
Justice OGorma1 who took me We" inat tnc sIatuto,I
provision that corporation should not bc enOned WITH
police was Intended to protect them against e1 pafte
inInnciIons and cOu!d never have been intended TO
protect corporations in carrying on business declared
dent that there had been 70 violation OF the
injunction II there injunction and the sole
defence WAS tn4t the Injunction was void As long
a, the New Jersey Transportation Comprny was
engaged in q lawful business an ihjUhcil WOuld be
against the Council for Ills Nj. aria had
taken upon themselves TO decide that the Injunction
was voii and had assumed great responsibility !"
Justice Insraham-lfI should make an Order adjuag
Ing Mr. starln contempt aui then grant stay 81
proceedings until 1t could he reviewed by the Gehe!s
Mr, Beaman-I think on both side. woai like to dc
mything further yoIr hOors dsposnS 81 Tue case
General Ter anyhow. .
Mr. Iearnan The only difficulty see about 1t would
he I'm regard protecting the rights OF all par ies
understand that your HOHOrs idea Is that the inuncto
Justice Ingraham L don't 90 far as that Ny ex-
animation resulted In the belief that IL IL very
f,,l indeed whether II il wit.In the statnte Here
Is New-Jcrsey corporation. There Is no objection,
slpyDse under the laws OF New-Jersey to IT'S carrying
on lis uSine.- the state Oi Ncwl Its buslLesS
Lawful! "a, far Ncwersey Il Csncerued II comes Ito
this state IFS basess which The laws OF Wis
state declared To be unlawful COul not be AL.
the statute Is concerned, tnAI tils Is part ~
~ ordinary business
Mr. BE iinan Sail allegation In the plead
ings that the comTaGys business WAS unlawful Inc
only allegation WIS that 10 running rs boats without
license. the rcnse wing been granted tn MI Ninlan
aud his company II disputed claim rs to wL0
hal the RI Sht 20 run the ferries.
Iusce Ingrah said IL was matter aoont Wulch ne
IA grYc DOUBTS and the best disposition Of IL would be
grant general order aduleiug tue Defendants In
contempt aud leaving the question Oi punishment TO the
Mr. Beaan asked that the matter stand until Mr.
Nance. Oueof the absent lawyers IN the case r0ud 10
The Judge st lie should he apt t. make Che
.po ion OF the ilDt lie hai suggested whether
tne parties consented not. He ld not that II
could possibly prejudice the cas-. and finally SAID;
wiI Hie tho Suggestions / have maze, aud II Mr.
wishes - DO heard you can notify me or !! GOt
, on can up order Ia accordance with what
have said Tor ms 10 sign