Evening journal., 1895-07-08
FORD SCORES VICTORY
Chancellor Wolcott Discharges
the Rule Against Him.
DEoIsION UPON THE TESTIMONY

Undertake-Pstsr j. Ford supremeiy
Happy
Peter Ford won notable victory
over the lessup and Moore Paper Com
pany this morning, when Chancellor
Wolcott handed doen a decision dis.
charging the rule against him. Those
present In behalf Of the Ford Morocco
Company were Mr. Ford and John Biggs
his lawyer The paper company was
represented by Willard Saulsbury. Jr..
and Levi Q Bird. The full text OF the
decision IS as follows:
"GRNTLEMEN: l propose now 20 an
nounoe my decision-not opinlon-in the
case OF the Jessup and Moore Paper
Company vs.. Peter j Ford.
Perhaps the magnitude Of the In
terests involved IN this case and the
great skill and ability with which II was
conductedl by counsel on both sides
would seem 10 demand more elaborate
treatment of the subject than the mere
decision either discharging the rule or
making 1t absolute; but have determin-
ed to decide or dispose OF the matteriupon
the evidence submitted entirely, with
out reference TO the legal prop1sitions
that were raised at the threshold OF the
hearing Of this rule Ny decision will
not elaborate the facts To have pre-
pared an opinion involving q complete
review Of the testimony would have
entailed an amount Of labor which ] did
not care to undergo, In fact, I was not
able TO do It II | had been so disposed
"0n the gath day Of November, 1885.
en- Injunction was issued directed against
Peter j. Ford, Thomas Ford and Thomas
Z. Ryan. Last Sprlng-some time last
April. believe--a rule was laid upon
Peter J Ford to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt, Ia
consequence of the alleged viola
tlon or breach OF the Injunction
issued in 1856 Peter j. Ford being
the only survivor OF Thomas Fo-d aud
Thomas +. Ryan, deceased at the hear.
ing OF the rule motion was made to
dispose of the same upon the ground
that the factory had become the property
Of, and WAS operated by corporation
known as the Ford Morocco Company,
and was not the property Of Peter j .
Ford nor was II under his control. That
Was the basis Of the motion
'At the conclusion OF that argument,
and before any step was taken. an
amended injunction had been discovered
among the papers and presented to the
court for its consideration In determining
that preliminary question.
Now / do not propose to decide that
question one way or the other pro-
pose to decide this case upon les merits
as disclosed by tho facts Of the testi-
monY. II | attempted 10 SO decide it. |
should be confronted with this difficulty
The late Chancellor Salisbury had It ia
mind that the original injunction was not
sufficient 10 punish Peter ]. Ford for
contempt, and the very fact
that he signed an amended
Injunction isl proof that there
was present Ia bis mind a doubt as TO the
sufnciency Of the original injunction,
according TO the changed conditions
that is, the transfer OF the property. II
the amended injunction was necessary Ia
order TO punish Peter j. Ford, or the
corporation Of which he wss q member,
then there could have been no violation
Of this amended Injunction, because II
had never been published or made known
He had no knowledge OF It and certainly
a man cannot be punished for the per.
formRuce OF an act which is prohibited
by an order or decree which has never
been published or circulated.
But do not propose TO decide that
question propose to decide this cRse
entirely upon its merits, and leave that
matter untouched or undieturbed.
shall DO that very briefly
There was very strong testimony on
the part Of the complainant that Peter
J. Ford was guilty Of a violation Of. or a
breach Of this Injunction; aud II the case
had depended upon the testimony Of the
complainant, ha certainly would have
been proven guilty But Peter Ford
meets that Testimony with evidence
quite as strong, II not stronger, that he
Is not guilty
IL believe 1t is conceded on both sides
that unless some damage or injury
resulted 10 the complainant because OF
the discharge OF Auid or LIQUID
nr any matter from that factory,
or otherwise, he could not bs
held guilty. Because, for an act which
can be Of no injury to the party invoking
the aid Of the court ia that respect, the de.
fendsnt cannot be held guilty OF contempt
Of, or breach sf an Injunction against
seid act. think IL Is conceded on both
sides that there must be soine damage or
iDi ury 60 the complainant before this
extraordinary remedy can be invoked
"As | have already said, here Is strong
testimony on both sides; and In the
presence Of such a strong conflict Of
testimoney, which Is entirely irreconcll !
able-for it would bafns the ingenuity Of
the most Gcute to reconcile the two cur
rents OF testimony, which Rre directly
the antipodes Of each other-hoW can any
mind escape doubt and q serious and
grave doubt, that this defendant is guilty
Of breach Of that order Ia thai injunc-
tion Assuming, now, that Mr.. Ford,
though not the owner OF this property,
can be guilty OF contempt, If he had
been 50 proven?
"In view Of the fact Of this grave
doubt existing Ia my mind. it is utterly
impossible for me TO decide that Peter J
Ford Is guilty OF any contempt. There
is n serious doubt in my MUD, aud that
doubt must control because Of the
consequences that would follow; and
there being such doubt the defendant
IN this case is entitled 20 the benefit OF
that doubt; aud / so decide, and this
rule must be discharged.
Sunday at Grace NJ. q. Church.
Despite the heat there was a good
attendance at Grace M. K. Church yester.
day. Service Of the holy Communion was
held In the morning and in the evening
Rev. Dr. Hulburd continued his lterest.
4