The morning call., 1890-12-23
HELD IN CONTEMPT.
Judge Wallace and Receiver
Reddy Fined $40 Each.
The Supreme Court Rules That They risobsyed
It's Order of injunction in the Sugar
Refinery Case.

The well-known Hayemeyer sugar re-
finery case in its many complications has
called forth from the Supreme Court another
decision, this time on peremptory writ of
prohibition and the charge that Judge Wal
lace of the Superior Court ard his appointed
receiver, Patrick Reddy, had violated an
order of Injunction issued by the Supreme
Court.
The written opinion is volumnous doc
ument and received the concurring signature
of Chief Justice Beatty, Justices Fox, Sharp
stein, McFarlane and Paterson. Justice
Thornton dissented declaring that there is
no evidence of contempt committed by either
party.
About year ago proceedings were insti-
tuted against the American Sugar Refinery
for forfeiture of its charter, as it had been
violated by the company's entering into a
trust combination. In the Superior Court
the charter was declared forfeited, and the
company was fined $1,000 Attorney p.
Reddy was appointed receiver, and writ
of prohibition was sued out and temporarily
granted, but afterward Receiver Reddy was
granted permission to remain i'll possession
OF the property.
THE SEVERAL. CONVENTIONS.
An order of injunction was then issued by
the Supreme Court and it is claimed that
Attorney Reddy interfered with the possess
sion and control of the refinery after this
order OF injunction. On behalf OF the re-
ceiver it is maintained that he was in alb
solute possession before the service of
papers enjOining him and that his subse-
Quent actions were only such as were neces-
sarily incumbent upon him. 1t is also
claimed that the effect of the Supreme
Courts writ was to take the direction and
control of the receiver out of its jurisdiction.
The latter claim, The Supreme Court held,
canuot be maintained, as the object of the
order and writ were expressed IN the plain
est terms. The court, after reviewing the
evidence, ruled that the appointment OF Mr..
Reddy as receiver was void. and that when
he entered the refinery it was as tres
passer. 1t was held that, even conceiving
Reddy's appointment valid, his acts were
not wholly justiiable. In concluding the
court found as follows:
Tie finding OF the court Is that William 7.
W aiiace. Judge of The Superior Court, and Fat
rick Reddy Esq. did, on the 18th day OF Febru-
any, 1880, aud on various days thereafter, vio
late our injunction herein issued and served on
The said Sth day of February, 1890, by remain
ing In and about the refinery and other property
in said witt described, aud by interfering with
the conduct OF their business therein. did thereby
dlsobey our lawful order and witt and were
therein gully OF Il contempt OF This court.
Wherefore, 1t Is ordered that said William T.
Wallace and Patl lex Reddy be, and each of them
is, hereby DDed III the sum OF $40.
JUDGE wALLACE's VIEWS.
on the subject of the decision of the Su-
preme Court expressed himself as follows:
. am at a loss TO understand how the Su-
preme Court could adiudge me guilty of con-
tempt OF court and impose a fine on me.
First, the court issued a writ of prohi bition
ordering me to refrain from taking any
further action in the sugar case. Then, be-
cause ] literally obey this order and abso-
lutely do nothing whatever in the case, coun-
sci IN the Supreme Court suggested that L
was technically guilty of contempt for
obeying the courts order.
On that suggestion the court, through
the Chief Justice, twice announced that it
saw nothing In the case that involved me in
the charge of contempt. | was personally
present in court at the time and stated to the
court that, as hoped it well knew. no man
Woul1 more cheerfully obey the courts Or
ders than | would that the writ Of probibi-
ton meant what its Nomenclature implied,
that WAS to stop proceeding of any kind in
the case that L had literally done SO; that
l had been confined TO my bed by sickness
during the whole time the writ ran, and was
during all the time unable to transact any
business whatever, and that, therefore, |
had neither the disposition nor the ability
to disobey the order.
LET IT SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
THAT if L had made any order in the case
after the service of the writ upon me- it
wonld simply have been an order to Mr.
Reddy to obey the Supreme Court; that,
IN my Judgment, even such an order as that
l had no right TO make after having been
commanded to desist from any proceedings
In the case, and that ii could hardly be sup
posed that any order of mine was necessary
10 give effect TO the mandate of the Su-
preme Court, which had been personally
served upon Mr.. Reddy. / do not
think 1t Is proper for me TO comment upon
the decision of the Supreme Court. leave
it to speak for itself"