The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1898-01-18
EMOTIONS ALL GRANTED"


New York, Jan. lJ.-Judse I-acomDc,
III the United states Circuit court Tor
the Eastern District OF New 1Orh has
handed down Il decision granting the mo-
uons mace on january to set aside
service in the cases OF VIM. ). Brewer
and the Union Associated Press, against
the following newspapers:
Louisville Press Company; Journal
Newspaper Company, OF indianapolis;
Evening News Association, OF Detroit,
Michigan; Commercial Tribune Compa-
ny, of Cincinnati, and the Inter-OceLn
publishing Company, Of Chicago.
These actions were originally begun in
the New York Supreme court in Queens
county, but we've 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 his death, the motions were
transferred into the Southern District
and were argued before Judge Lacombe.
This decision practically reverses the
decision made in the case Of Fontana
against the Pittsburg Chronicle and the
decisions made by Judge Tenney in the
cases Of Brewer and Union Associated
Press against George w. Knapp and
Company. in 81 Fed. Rep. 694. This deci-
sion VIII force the pldlIll4IlS 10 an dD-
peal TO settle this jurisdictional question.
The following IS a copy Of the deci-
sion:
The facts in all these cases are more
or less similar to those ~rehearSed in I'm
ion Associated Press vs.. Times Printing
Company Circuit court Southern Dis
trict of New York. October /, and Octo-
Ter %. 1912 and N Brewer vs.. George
w. Knapp and Company, 81 Federal
Reporter 694.
Upon consideration of questions pre-
scented. | am by no means confident
that my former decision in the Fontana
case was correct. or that Judge Tenney
and myself were right in holding that the
several individuals served with process
we're magazine agents OF the defen-
dants.
Il am, however, more than ever i'm
pressed with the Importance of having
this jurisdictional point decided in each
ease, before the time of the court is con-
sumed in trying the merits Of the con-
troversy. Here we have Including the
cases named in the caption and the
others on the calendar). nearly 80 libel
suits all brought by the same parties n
gainSt different newspapers located IN
widely scattered States, with no sugges-
ton that the libel was ever published or
circulated here by defendants or that
they ever lone anything more in the way
Of business here than to solicit advertise
ments through some advertising agent,
who in most cases acts as advertising
agent for some other paper and has no
control over the rates to be charged or
the space to be given. 1t is hardly to
be supposed that Congress intended the
Federal Circuit courts to exercise such
comprehensive and f~ar-reaching juris-
diction, except when a case coming strict
ly witnln the language of the statute is
made out.
The proper disposition to make Of this
entire group of cases would seem to be to
grant these motions. By reviewing such
decisions in some test cases the plaintiff
may ave the jurisdictional question set
tied, and neither side be exposed to the
unnecessary burden OF trying the case
on the merits with the chance of the APP
peliate court setting aside the judgment
for lack of jurisdiction. The question
presented is one OF great Importance.
Probably there are but few papers in the
United States which do not publish adj
refreshments originating in this city. er
which do not solicit such advertisements
here. If this and the adjoining (South-
considered the proper forum for suits a.
gainst the owners OF such papers, where
ever they may reside and conduct their
business Of publishing and circulating
such business, it seems probable that our
calendars may be seriously ove~rburdened.
Motions are al granted"