The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-16
JUDGEREyERsED HIMSELF.
Motions to set Aside Services In Lib'i
suit Granted.


NEW YORK. Jan 15-Judgo Lacomhe,
in the United states Circuit Court Of the
Eastern District OF New York, has hand
cd down a decision granting the motions
made on January TIN TO set aside service
i'm The cases of William :. Brewer ana
the Union Associated Press against the
folicv,in, uewspapers. Louisville Press
Company. Journal New spaper company
of Indianapolis. Evening News Associa-
ton of Dciroil. Mich commercial III
hume Company N Cincinanu, and the ln-
ter-Ocean Publishing Company OIL 'hl-
capo.
Ttoeo actions were originally begun In
the New York Supreme Court in queens
county. bt were thereafter removed by
the defendants into the United States
court for the Eastern District of New
York. and the motions to dismiss were
noticed before Hon. Judge Tenney.
ON account Of hts death. the motions
were transferred into the Southern Dis
frict and were argued before Judge La
comhc.
This decision practically rcvorses tho
decision made in the case m FontanN
against the pitisburg Chronicle Telo-
rraph. and the decisions made by Judge
Tonncv in the cnso Of Brewer and the
Union Associated Press against George
W. Knapp in - Fed. Rep. COT. this de-
cision viii force tho plaintiffs 90 an ap-
peal to settle this iurisdictioual question.
Tho followine is a copy of the decision:
'Thc facts I'm an these cases are more
or less similar 10 those rchcarscd IN
Union Associlted Press vs.. Times Print
ing Company Circuit Court District Of
New York October I and October ~.
1871 and in Brnwor VS.. George w. Knapp
d 60. 50 Federal Reports. f9O. Ipon con-
sidcratlous or questions presented. I am
by no means so confident chat my former
decision in the Fontana case was cor
rect or that Judge Tcnncy and myself
were right in holding that several indi-
viduals served with processes were man
acling agents OF the defendants
~ am. however. more than ever i'm
p-assed with ttc Importance ~ having
this iurisdictoral point decided In each
case before the time of the Court is rom
sumed I'm trying the merits of the contro-
versy Here were have Including the cases
named i'm the capitation and tho others
on the calendar nearly fifty lble suits,
an brought 10y the same parties against
different newspapers located In widely
s.l-iarcd States with no suggestion s,at
th. .ihel was over published or cir.Ilated
hcre by the defendants or that they have
ever done anything n the WHY of busi-
ness here other than TO solicit advertise
rncnts througl some advertising agent
VINO In most cases acts as advertising
agent for some ether papers. and has no
control over the rates to he charged or the
space to be given. II is hardy 10 be sup
posed'tkat Compress intended the Fn1 ral
Circuit Courts to exercise such compre-
hcfsive and fai-reaching jurisdiction. ex-
capt when q case coming strictly wshin
the language Of the statute is made out
"The proper disposition 10 make Of this
entire group of cases would seem to he
10 grant these motions. BY reviewing
such decisions in some test cases the
plaintif may have the iur.sdicti0nal qucs-
ton settled. and neither side be exposed
TO the unnecessary burden of trying the
case on the merits. with the chance Of
the appellate court setting aside the
judgment for lack Of jurisdiction. The
question presented is one Of great inn
portance Probably there are few papers
i'm the United states which do not pub
lish advertisements originating IN this
city. or which do not solicit such adver-
tisements here. VI this and the adjoining
(Southernl district are for that reason
TO be considered the proper forum for
suits against tho owners Of such papers
wherever they may reside ana conduct
their business of publishing and circu-
lating such business. II seems probable
that our calendars may be seriously over
burdcned.'
motions are all granted"