Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-01-17
CAMPBELL & DICK.
A FARO SENSATION.
Continued from First Page.
jal2TTs

money fraudulentIy procured from the Enter
prise Savings Bank.
The evidence does not disclose any collusion
or conspiracy. but on the contrary that Mcclure
and Freyyogle did not know Quinn was play
ing with Dixon's money. They played on each
side merely to unlawfully get as much money
as they could, entirely Independent of the own
ership of it or the source of supply. Freyvogle
having won no money net from Quinn. none of
his deposit in the Duquesne National Bank be-
longs to the plaintiff. Mcclure, in uncontra-
dicted testimony accounts for most of his de-
posirs there from other sources; so that none of
it can for certainty be the property of the
plaintiff.
THR LEGAL PHASES OF IT.
The question of equity jurisdiction was
raised and discussed before me. There is no
specific prayer for relief in the bill. except the
prayer for an injunction. 1t may be that the
Court after obtaining equity jurisdiction by
reason of the necessity for an injunction,
might proceed to adjudicate the ownership of
the funds concerning which the injunction was
issued, under the general prayer for equitable
relief adapted to the circumstances of the case;
but take it that, if there is no equitable right
to be projected by the injunction, the injunc
ton itself was improperly issued, and should
not be continued.
The only allegation 1 can find in the bill that
could be so construed as to bring the bill within
any of the grounds for the Jurisdiction of a
court of equity, as laid down in the Pennsyl-
vaniastatutes, are the allegations of the fraud,
collusion and conspiracy OF Mcclure, Frey
vogle and Quinn to defraud the plaintiff of his
money, and presume it was on the strength of
these allegations that the Court granted the
preliminary injunction. The solicitor for the
plaintiff very properly insisted that the Court,
having once recognized the propriety of the
remedy by issuing the preliminary Injunction,
wal M Mae N hnt
whereas in this case the Court took jurisdic-
tion on the strength of the allegations in the
bill which were not proven, and which no eff
forts whatever were made to prove, but which,
on the contrary, were found both by the plain
tiff-s and defendants evidence to be
ENTIRELY UNFoUNDED IN FACT,
I consider it the duty of the Master to find
that, upon the plaintiffs case as presented be-
fore him, a court of equity has no jurisdiction
of the subject matter of the suit, and there
fore so find.
As 1 remarked before, the bill does not pray
for an adjudication of the ownership of the
fund in the Duquesne National Bank; but on
the hearing it was claimed that it should be
decreed to the plaintiff. 1 do not think it
should be awarded to the plaintiff because
First-I do not think there is sufficient evil
dence to show that any portion of it was ever
the plaintiffs money.
Second-f it had been the money of the |
plsiinLlI, uO nOJ Lulnh d COuIb VI euulLy HAS |
any power or jurisdiction in this case to decree |
that the BANK should pay said money to the |
plaintiff ,
am, therefore, of the opinion that the pre-
liminary injunction should be dissolved. and |
that the bill should be dismissed at the cost of !
the plaintiff, and 1 submit herewith form of |
decree to that effect.
HENRY A. DAVIS, Master.
January 16, 1889.
This decIsion will be augmented in in
terest by knowledge of the fact that Frey |
vogle McClure's friends are doing all in |
their power to secure Executive pardon for
them from the excessive sentence to the !
workhouse, which was imposed largely, |
without doubt, because the Court believed |
them guilty of the conspiracy from which |
they are now legally absolved.