New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-01-16
DECISION IN THE BREWER CASE.
JUDGE 1AcoMBE SAYS HE IS MORE THAN EVER
IMPRESSED WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF
HAVING THE JuRIsDICT1oNAL CUES
r-O>r Decided IN EACH CASE.


Judge Iacombe. in the United States Circuit Court
for the Eastern District OF New-York has HANDED
down decision upon the motions made before him
on January 10 Get aside service IN the cases OF
William s. Brewer and the Union Associated Press
against the following newspapers LOUISVILLE
Press" Company, journal" Newspaper Company
o1,vening News" Association. Commercial Trb-
rne" Company and enter Ocean" Publishing Com
pany.
These actions were originally begun In the New
York Supreme Court IN Queens County. but were
thereafter removed by the defendants into tho
United States Circuit Court for the Eastern stflct
of New-York. and the motions to dismiss were no
ticed before Judge Tenney On account or his death
The motions were transferred into the Southern Dis
trct and were argued before Judge Lacom5e.
This decision practically reverses tho decision
made In the case OF Foniana against THE Pittsburg
Chronicle Telegraph" ana the decisions mado by
Judge Tenney in tho cases OF Brewer and Union AS
ISOLATED Press against George Knapp & Co., in 50
Fed Rep. 6s4. This decision will force the plaintiffs
TO an appeal settle this jurisdictional question
Tho following is q copy OF the decision
The facts In all these cases are moro or less SINH
against Times Printing Company Circuit Court
Southern District OF New York. october and Octo-
& CO.. q Federal Reporter tsi.
Upon 10 OF e9 qF ba y &
sion in the FOntana case was correct, or that Judge
aaT y as se %S,s pcess H e
aging agents OF the defendants.
I am, however more than ever Impressed with the
importance OF having this juriscictonal point de-
cded in each case before the time OF the Court -
consumed in trying the merits Of the controversy.
Here we have Gncuding the cases named In tho
canton and tho others on the calendar) nearly fifty
libel suits all brought by the parties against
different newspapers located in widely scattered
States with no suggestion that the libel ever
published or circulated here by Defendants that
they have done anything more in the OF
business here than 10 solicit advertisements through
some advertising agent VINO in most cases acts aS
Rising agent for several other papers and has
no the rates TO be charged the space
10 be given. II Is hardly 10 be supposed that Con-
aress Intended the Federal Circuit Courts to eXer
else such comprehensive and far-reaching jurisdic
lion except. when a coming strictly within the
language Of the statute Is made out.
Tho proper disposition 10 mako Of this entire group
OF ca ses would seem 20 be 10 grant these motions
Hv reviewing such decision IN somo test the
Plaintiff may have the turisdictiOnal question set
lied and neither side be exposed to the unnecessary
chance Of the Appellate Court setting aside tho
Judgment FOR lack OF jurisdiction. The question pre-
sentod is ono Of great importance Probably there
are but few newspapers In the United States which
DO not publish advertisements originating in this
citv or whoh do not solicit such Hdver tiscmonts
here II this and tho adjoining Southern district
are for that reason. to be considered the proper
forum for suits against tho owners OF such papers
wherever they may reside and conduct their bust
ness Of publishing and circulating such business. Il
seems probable that our calendars may be seriously
overburdeDed.
Motions all granted.