The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-02-17
IN CONTEMPT
The Chancellor Holds P. R.
r. for Violating the
National Docks
Injunction.
TO BE PUNISHED LATER
Court Concludes That the Comp
apy's Property Should
Be seqnestered.
TO BE PUNISHED LATER
WRIT DELAYED THIRTY DAYS
Work at the Point of Rocks Delayed
Until Another Hearing Is
Had on Wednesday.

There was an unusual stir among the
lawyers who crowded the Court of
Chancery this morning when the Chan
ee,lor adiudged the Pennsylvania Rail-
road Company TO be in contempt of
court and said that he had reached the
conclusion that he should direct the
issuance of writ of sequestration
against its property as a punishment for
dis-egarding the order OF the Court
The decision is another phase of the
war which the National Docks Railroad
Company has been waging for many
years with the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company for the right to construct a
tunnel for its tracks under the yard of
the Pennsylvania Company at the old
Point Of Rocks. The National Docks has
won in every court. including the Fed
era!. ~ which the. case has appeared and
recently secured an order from Vice
Chancellor Reid restraining the Penn
syiyania from in any way interfering
with the work of constructing the tun-
nsi When the men started in ito do
the wori. they found that the PennsyI-
vaaia hid run a number of fiat cars
loaded with rock. on to the tracks they
wishsd 70 50 under, 50 that the ears
ana tne.r contents would fall into the
excavation they would make to the dam
ser OF The workmen's lives and limbs. The
National Docks then appealed to the
: Chancellor for ali nraes to adiudge the
Pennsylvania 10 be in contempt and to
seausster rs properly The Chancellor
had heard few unimportant motions
this morning. when. addressing James
Vredenburgh, who represents the Penn
sylvania Company, he said that he had
considered the application Of the Nation
al Docks Railroad Company against the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company ard had
prepared partial opinion Then rails
ing his voice so that it could be heard in
allpsrss of thereon he began to read. He
briefly reviewed the controversy between
the reads and said that finally Vice
Chancellor Reid advised an order which
restrained the Pennsylvania Company
from interfering with the complainant in
the construction of its tunnel under the
defendants yard and that the defendant
was further enjoined from placing or
maintaining any cars on tracks Nos 2
and 5. From this order the defendants,
the Pennsylvania Company, appealed
within ten days and on January % it de-
iip5rately removed some baggage cars
which stood on tracks and 3, and placed
il their stead fat cars loaded with rock
for the purpose CT obstructing the work
$ Because of this conduct the. Court was
asked to punish the defendant.
The decree the Chancellor said prevent
ed the defendant generally from placing
cars on the tracks and from interfering
with the complainant,s work The de-
fendant disputed the complainant's right
and proposes to dispute it, claiming that
in exercising it the complainant would
interfere with the operation of its yard
when by little extra expense the com
plainant could do the work without such
interference
The Chancellor then considered the
point raised by the Pennsylvania that the
appeal acted as stay Of the decree. In
the absence Of any statute in this State,
he said, recourse had to be had to the
English practice. and he quoted many
English authorities to show that the ap-
peal does not act ASA stay unless an or
der 10 that effect is issued by the Chan
celior. He also quoted numerous cases in
the report of the Federal courts and the
courts of other States in the same line
that he could find no warrant that the
mere appeal in that case stopped all pro-
csedings under the Chancellor's decree.
This injunction is in force and must
be .obeyed, the Chancellor continued. with
emphasis. .tand the parties all being in
Court must take notice of that fact. Upon
the facts presented there is no doubt of
the defendants disobedieEee of the decree
OF the Court. 1t has been guilty of
negative omissions as well as active COM
missions. This is not denied by the de-
PENDANTS, but it says in extenuation that
it acted in good faith BY advise Of coun-
sell That the Chancellor said would
mitigate against the defendants punish
ment and that the action to be taken by
the Court remained for further consider
alton But when the Courts decree is
openly deied as in this case. it cannot be
overlooked and I have reached the con
nlusion that should direct the issuance
Of the process Of seoues tration against
1 the COMPANY s property believe that
the company has acted IN good faith BY