The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1897-04-23

that in the roturn there was Ian
guage used deemed disrespectful to
the State court Those facts consti
tute no contempt of court. The
court holds, rs previously, that the
filing of the return was not the pros
ecution Of an action in violation Of
the injunction; that it was made pur-
suant to application Of tho receiver
of the State court; that it's language
was proper and docorous. AS to
their obtaining leave to file the sup,
ersedeas bond, that was right ac-
corded to them by his honor. The
appeal from the order to file bonds,
etc, for inspection was made IN good
faith and was successful.
AS to j. N. Nathans, after stating
the findings and facts at longth the
court says: We have already shown
that SO far RS the acts of the parties
and attorneys, dono in the United
States court in response to the rule
OF that court is no contempt. 1t only
remains to be considered whether Mr.
Nathans was in contempt in filing
the bill of the De LoVorge Co., for
it is manifest that, if he could, With
out being guilty of contempt, file
such a bill, he would be properly
free to do anything in said cause in
accordance with the forms and prac-
tice Of that court whether ho deem I'd
proper for his clients interests The
finding of the circuit court exone-
rates Mr.. Nathans from any duplici-
ty in representing both tho Secur-
ity bank and the Do LaVergne Co.
While he appeared for tho bank in
tho State court, MIR. Sinkler appear.
ed for it in the United States court.
1t is conceded that Mr.. Nathans had
notice Of the ordor Of in Injunction. If
having such notice ho prosecuted
any action against tho brewery comp
any in any other court, State or
Federal, he undoubtedly could be
attached for contempt 1t is not as
serted upon plain principles of con-
stitutional law that court of equity
could enjoin the process of Fed
eral court, but it may restrain per-
sons within it's jurisdiction and pun
ish disobedience of it's orders by any
one bound thereby. Considering the
question, then, whether the Dc La
Vergne Co., represented by Mr.. Ma
thans, was bound by the order of in
Junction. 1t is foreign corpora
tion, resident in New York. 1t in no
way voluntarily submitted itself to
the jurisdiction Of tho State court.
| 1t follows, after quoting authorities,
that so far as the company is con-
cerned, the order of injunction is n
nullity. That company not being
, before the court, under attachment
Tor contempt, it is not necessary to
, go further into the question argued
whether tho State court can enioin a
citizon Of another State from prose-
cutting an action in tho United States
court. If Mr.. Nathans, in tho dis
: charge Of his professional duty to
his client, advised, prepared and
, filed the bill in tho United States
, court it cannot be said that he advis-
7 cd any violation of the injunction.
After stating that tho conclusions
wero reached without special consid-
J Grafton Of the returns of the defend
, ants, which denied any purpose to
Disregard the injunction, the court
says: at is truo the defondaats
expressed no regret for their acts.
, This no doubt is duo to the fact that
} the manly self-respect of honorable
, men will not permit tlem to mako
falso expressions of regret, which
they do not feel for acts dono hon.
} estly and consciontiously. We do
find, however, expressions of reg ret
| that the court had misconceivcd their
purpose and intcntion."
Tho court next considers whether
the sentence for contempt is void
| because not rendered at torn time
, but at chambers We hold tho Or
9 der or Judgment void because such
judgment must be rendered publicly
and in open court. 1t is tho act Of
tho court and not of the judge and
t is not to be dono at term time.