The San Francisco call., 1898-04-20

fines and costs aggregating more than 5000. Some months ago the Cooks, John R., the father, and ". E. and John s. Cook, his sons, leased to Hervey Lindley of Los Angeles and a syndicate represent ed by him the saw mill, logging railroad and other property of the Klamath River Lumber and Improvement Company, with a three years option for the pur- chase of the same. JChe Cooks were in debt and for that reason as well as for the fact that the lumber market was very weak, owing to low prices, the advent of MT. Lindley and his company, the Poke gama Sugar Pine Lumber Company, was hailed as a blessing. But after the Poke gama people had expended about S75,00O in making various necessary improvements, and after the price of lumber rose in the market, certain parties from the East of fered to buy the property from the Cooks.
 This was the beginning of friction be- tween the Cooks and MT. Lindley, and af- fairs were brought to climax by the Cooks, who retook forcible possession of the mill and the railway with a gang of armed men. After an intellectual appeal to the Superior Court of Siskiyou County the Pokegama Company appealed to the United States Circuit Court in this city. Judge Morrow issued a restraining order prohibiting the Cooks from interfering with the Pokegama people in operating the works and otherwise enjoying the property under the lease. The Cooks re- sisted the process of the court, having been advised to that action by H. B. Cii- lis one of the attorneys for the Klamath people, who gave the opinion that the re- straining order did not require the Cooks to give up possession. Thereupon the Cooks and a score Of employees were ar rested for contempt.
 Yesterday morning Judge Morrow deliv- cred an oral decision in the contempt case. There were present E. $. Pilsbury, attorney for the Pokegama Company, and Judge $. c. Denson, Fred Stratton and H. B. Gillis for the Klamath Company.
 Judge Morrow began by saying that he had already announced the opinion enter tained by him with regard to the restrain ing order In his opinion that order was proper, and the only question before the court was whether the order has been violated. The order was lawful one and disobedience to it was contempt. If the court had eyer had any doubt in this case 1t would be relieved from that doubt by the proceedings that had taken place in similar case entltleu- me feople or the State of New York against John Lyman King. King was a political boss, and when the injunction was served upon him he said 10 the officers, "Injunctions don't go here. See?" Judge Barnard cited King for contempt, and it was urged very strongly that the court had no authority to issue the injunction and that the order was erroneous. The court in that case indicated that the injunctive order was erroneous. but the court very pointedly and clearly pointed out that the court had the mower to issue an injunction, and it therefore devolved upon the parties to obey if. An appeal was taken to the Su- nreme Court. and the Supreme Court sus- tained the decision of the lower court that even if the order was erroneous it was not void and should be obeyed
 ..I think the violation has been gross, ' continued Judge Morrow "and under ordi- nary circumstances the punishment 1yo,iId he severe. I shall, however, take into consideration the fact that there were nroceedngs in the State court which had decided that the respondents were not in contempt in taking possession of the property. I shall also take in considera- tion inc fact that when (after March 29) inc respondents were advised by their counsel to comply with the order, they showed no disposition to disobey the re-
 "I desire it to be distinctly understood that the punishment which I am about 10 inflict is no criterion of what I would infIict in other cases, or if there should he any further contempt in this matter The .' n,nishment will be inflicted not only for the purpose of warning those parties, but all other parties having dealings with co,,rts not to be guilty of this offense"
 The court then fined J. R. Cook w E. Cook. John S. Cook, H. B. Gillis, George w Marsh George Norris, J. McEnerney and c. Stock $50 each, together with costs, with the alternative of thirty days im- were fined their pro rata of the costs, the whole amount of costs being s700. w Baxter was discharged and Attorney Tonscott was let off on the ground that he was the junior member of the law firm which gave the disastrous advice to the Cooks to take possession of the property in defiance of the restraining order and