The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-12-19
DAMAGED BY AN INJUNCTION.
Logging Firms Seek Recompense for
Alleged Interference.

II the story told in the superior court
yesterday afternoon by the Seattle Safe
Deposit and Trust Company proves true
anG the court looks at the matter as the
trust company views n, then Mcdonald e
Moore. the l0geers. viii probably regret
that they brought suit for 81 900 damages
heosuse Of an injunction issued last spring
IN Snohomish county, preventing them
from cutting logs. This IS another part 81
IRE story that deals incidentally with the
fores, fire that burned a large amount OF
l8Fs near Wckersham last summer
The Safe Deposit Company was engaged
In q suit IN Whatcom county last spring
with william ]. Jennings and wife. and
procured a restraining order 10 prevent
Mcdonald & Moore from cutting timber
or the southeast quarter of section |,
township 2S north. range I. and the east
half OF the northwest quarter OF section
3. township 81 north. range east At
IRIS time Mcdonald & Moore were cutting
tlgher under contract with Receiver Hays.
% o. = Gulfou & Co, and as they un-
derstood and claimed. the land was In con-
trol or the superior court OF King county
July the case was heard by Judge VIM
N Snohomish county and decided in favor
ef Mcdonald & Moore In bringing suit
sEsinst the Safe Deposit Company in King
eouaty. Mcdonald & Moore claimed that
during the time they suspended work un-
Ger the order Of the Whatcom court they
we're compelled 70 pay the salary OF TWEEN
N-'Wo men. which amounted 70 $tb0 the
-hiFe OF eight horses. amounting to s6i: $3.50
f3r attorneys, and were also prevented
ron removing 500 90 feet Of logs, which
were. without fault 0f theirs. destroyed
" fire Mcdonald e Moore claimed an
interest 81 $500 in the logs. In asking for
rea damages they Included Angus Mack
ia'osh. on the ground that he was a surety
= paw damages with the Safe Deposit
Company that might arise by reason OF
ne Injunction being wrougfully or op-
fressvely issued
N telling its side Of the story the Safe
ieposii Company SAYS that Mcdonald &
Moore ia not have any men employed
eaF'ng the tendency Of the Injunction. ani
denies that they were compelled 10 pay
~ az wages. The claim "a - the horses
= Tefutef. and the assertion IS MADE mat
re Injunction d!d not prevent the removal
9 seen feet ~ logs After remArking
'aN Mcdonald & More ala not have seo0
interest IN the logs, and that they id
ra' paw out 500 for attorneys. the Safe
1@nost Company goes on . say that x
Anet Judgment AKA INST william + Jen-
Is ana wife June - ISe5. ON A pronls-
~ note secured BY a mortgage cover
..S me property on which Mcdonald 4
30 we're lrgsinr. July - he sheriff
TIE property sui The trust company
N ~ t1So whereas there was disa
. The premises were chiefly valuable
timber. ana through the action Of No
aAd & Moore IN cutting !. 60. 5sS feet q
- tAe property could not be sold fcr
ash e satisev the ruo1Eaee held nv the
Deposit Company. In This way the
'.e htncst Company figures s>55 dam
y ana fsurfne 'he value 81 the timber
Z demands Nr-e as costater CLAN,
g answer ~ Macintosh IS IN Substance
same as tAet ~ HE safe Deposit Com
y except thlt al Macintosh asks r.
= e'schAreci ana that the costs 10
dFed % TIRE plaintiffs.