The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1895-07-08
FIFTH EDITION,
MIR. FORD NOT CURRY.
Chancellor woIcots Says Iro Did Net Vic
ia,c tho InJunctiou Issued ont of chancsry
CYaupf

Chanosilor woIcott Says IIo Did Not Vic
ia.c tho Injunction ISSUED out OF Chanosry
Court.
The decision OF Chancellor woicott In
the injunction suit of the Jeegup u Moore
Paper Company vs.. Ford Morocco Com.
pHny was delivered this morning and was
a clear and concise decree, favoring TIE
correspondent TO the chanoery action
which has been pending In that court for
several months.
The decree wlllin all probability lead to
the condemnation OF the famous Silver.
brook by the city and the substituting oil
sewer TO carry the refuse matter from
the Ford plant and others which may DO
located along the banks OF the stream to
stream other than the Chrlstiana Creek.
or to point In that creek where 1t will
not Interfere with the product OF any
other Wilmington enterprise.
This is the decision In full. have de-
termined to decide or dispose OF the mat.
ter upon the evidence submitted entirely
without reference to the legal proposi.
tluDs that were raissd ct the threshhold OF
the hearing OF this rulo. My decision will
not elaborate tho facts.
To have prepared an opinion involving
complete review OF the testimony would
have entailed an amount OF labor which
able to DO IL n had boon so disposed.
On the cath day OF November 1885, an
Injunction was lssued. directed Against
Peter j. Ford. Thomas Ford and Thomas
+. Ryan. Last spring, sometime In April
l believe. rule wac laid upon Peter ].
Ford TO show cause why he should not be
punished for oontempt In consequence OF
the alleged violation or breach Of the In.
junction Issued In 1885 Peter j. Ford
being the only survivor OF Thomas Ford
and Thomas f. Ryan. deceased.
At tho hearing of tho rule motion wac
made to dispose Of the same upon the
ground that the factory had become the
property OF, and was operated by, COR
poIatlon known as the Ford Morocco
Company and was rot the property OF
Peter }. Ford, nor was II under bis con-
troll. That was the bnsls of the motion.
At tie conclusion OF that argument, and
before amy step was taken. an amended
Injunction had been discovered among
the papers and presented to the court for
Its consideration In determining that pre-.
limlnary question.
Now, / do not, propose to decide that
question ono way or the other. ] propose
to decide this CAGE upon Its merits as dis.
closed by the facts of tho 20 stimony. III
attempted to so decide II. should be
confronted with this difficulty. The late
Chancellor salisbury had 1t IN mind that
the original Injunction was not eufflcient
to punish Peter j. Ford for contempt and
the very fact tina. he signed an amended
Injunction Is proof that there was present
In his mind doubt as to the suiflcienoy
Of the original injunction. according to
the changed cOnditione-thRt ID. the trans
fer OF the property.
IL the amended Injunction was neces-
sary In order to punish Peter j. Ford. OF
the corporation of which he was mem-
Der, then there could have been no Viola
lion OF this amended Injunction, because
1t had been published or made known. He
had no knowledge of IL. and certainly q
man cRnnot be punished for the perfor-
nance OF an act which lie prohibited by an
order or q decree which has never been
published or circulated.
But do not propose to decide that
question. propose to decide this case
entirely upon Its merits. and leave that
matter untouched or undisturbei. shall
do that very briefly.
There was very strong testim ony on the
part OF the complainant that Peter j.
Ford was guilty of q violation OF or
breach OF this Injunction, and II the case
had depended upon the testimony Of the
com plainant, he certainlywouid have been
proven guilty.
But Peter J. Ford meots that testimony
with evidence quite as strong, II not
stronger, that he 10 not guilty.
believe th6t 10 Is conceded on both
sides that unless some damage or Injury
resulted to the complainant because OF
the discharge of fluid or liquid or any
matter from that factory or otherwise. he
could not DO held liable. Because for an
act which can be OF no Injury to the
party invoking the aid OF the court In
that respect. the defendant cannot be held
guilty OF contempt OF or breach OF an
Injunction against said act.
/ think II 10 conceded on both aides that
there must be some damage or Injury TO
the complainant before this extra ordinary
remedy can be invoked. As / have al.
ready said. here Is strong testimony on
both eides. and In the presence OF such q
strong conflict of testimony. which Ia
entirely irreconcilable. for 1t would battle
the Ingenuity OF the IN ost acute to recon.
cile the two currsnis Of testimony, which
are directly the antipodes of each other,
how can any mind escape doubt. and q
serious and grave doubt that this de-.
fsndant lie gallty OF that order in that In.
junction.
Assuming. now. that Peter J. Ford
tho Ugh not the owner of this property
can be guilty of contempt, II he had
been 80 proven
In view OF the fact of this grave dout I
existing In my mind 1t Is utterly impos-
sible for me to decide that Peter j. Ford
is guilty OF contempt.
There Ia a serious doubt In my mind,
and that doubt must control, because OF
the consequences that would follow. and
there being such u doubt the defendant
In tHls case Is entitled to the benefit oi
that doubt; and so decide, and this rule
must be discharged.
"
River Notes.