The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-09-16
A FINE FOR CONTEMPT
STRAWBOARD WORKS PEOPLE PUN
ISHED BY JUDGE BAKER.
Water Company May Also Sue the No
blesviIle Concern for Damages
for the Dam Break.

Judge Baker, of the United States Cir
cult Court yesterday decided the case of
the Indianapolis Water Company against
the American Strawboard Company by
filming the latter company. The case is that
growing out of the recent breaking of the
dam at Noblesvlle. by which millions of
gallons of refuse matter permitted to
flow into the river, to the great injury of
the water company, which was under con-
tract to furnish pure drinking water to the
people of this city. Judge Baker had pre-
viously issued an injunction against the
strawboard company, prohibiting it from
emptying the refuse in the river. The COM
pany then constructed a huge reservoir by
damming off a low place from connection
with the river. 1t was this dam that broke
and allowed the large amount OF refuse
matter collected to flow into the river.
The proceedings by the water company
were brought to punish the strawboard
company for contempt in violating the
injunction. Judge Baker finds the defendant
guilty of contempt, not, however, growing
out of a wilful intention to violate the
injunction, but resulting from gross neg.
ligence. He inf1icts a fine of $3.50, together
with costs. and intimates that the Indian
apolis Water Company could recover dam
ages should the proper suit be brought
before jury. Judge Bakers decree in part
is as follows:
THE complainant, the Indianapolis
Water Company obtained final decree
in this court against the defendant, the
American Strawboard Company, perpetu-
ally enjoining the American Strawboard
Company, and its officers, agents, servants.
and employees from and after the first day
of December, 1893, from passing, ftowin..
discharging, casting or permitting to pass.
flow or to be discharged or cast or to es-
cape into White river any decomposable
or deleterious matter of refuse or offal
from the defendants said strawboard fac
tory. A copy of this decree was duly
served on c. D. Macy, the general super
intendent and manager of the wboard
company at Noblesville, Ind. petition
was filed by the complainant and d rule
was entered requiring the defendant and
they had. why they should not be pun
ished for violating this injunction. A hear
witnesses We're sworn and examined touch
ing the matter of the alleged contempt
NOT WILFUL VIOLATION.
Judge Baker here reviews the evidence
in the case and continues as follows:
The evidence does not satisfy the Court
manager Intentionally and purpose!y vio-
lated the injunction. However, with full
knowledge of the noxious character of the
refuse discharged from the mill, they pur-
poSely constructed the reservoir on the
bank of the river, and emptied into it daily
1900 900 gallons of deleterious refuse for
their own convenience and profit. They did
this knowing the hazard of their under
taking, and the injury which must newt
ably follow if the embankment gave way
and the contents of the reservoir were
emptied into the river. They were creating
vate gain, and they We're enjoined by the
decree of the court not to suffer it to es-
cape into the river. Negligently, but not
wilfully, they did suffer and permit 1t so to
~
The Court holds that the argument of
the defense, that it cannot be punished for
contempt because the injunction not
wilfully violated, is not we'll founded, and
cites numerous cases to sustain the conclu-
sion.
THE remaining question" concludes the
decree, lis as to the remedy to be award
tempt consists in violating an injunction
granted for the protection of the property
rights of the complainant, 1t is said by
the Supreme Court that the proper pun
ishment is fine or imprisonment until the
offending party performs the act required
of him or shows that it is incapable of
defendant could, with absolute certainty,
keep the refuse of its mills from escaping
ate the same. The circumstanc here do
not seem to me at this time to require
the infection of a punishment which would
stop the operation of the mill.
A CASE FOR DAMAGES
''It is said to be the duty of the Court
and within its power and in accordance
with it's practice to commit the offending
party to the custody of the marshal until
such offending party shall compensate the
injured party for the damage sustained by
the breach of the injunction. In my judg-
ment the Court has the power to commit
the offending party until he shall make
compensation to the injured party in a
case where the damages caused by a
breach of the injunction are capable of
liquidation according to the practice of
the court. In the present case. however,
the damages are unliquidated and difficult
of entertainment, and ought not to be set
tied without the Intervention of a jury.
must therefore. decline to ascertain them
in this proceeding. 1t may be that the
Court would have the power to require
the defendant to give security for the pay
ment of damages, to be ascertalned by the
seem to call for the exercise of any such
power as the defendant and it's general
damages for any injury suffered by the
The breach of the injunction arose
from the negligence, and not from the
wilfulness of the defendant and its Off
GERS, and it was not known by them that
by negligently suffering permitting the
they would be regarded in contempt
for violating the injunction heretofore
to me that the Court ought to impose a
moderate fine only. AS the complainant
was fully justified in moving against the
defendant and its general manager, it is
entitled to costs, with a moderate allow
ance for attorneys fees.
AN order may be prepared adjudging the
American Strawboard Company and c. D.
Macy. its general manager, guilty of con-
tempt in disobeying the Injunction hereto
them of $3.50 to be paid to the clerk OF the
court for the use of the complainant to-
gether with the cost of this proceeding to
be taxed