The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1900-05-16
THE TELEPHONE SUITS.

The litigation between tho Telephone Man
ufacturlbg Company aud the Sumter Tel.
ephooe Manufacturing Company hss aroused
a great deal Of interest, and last Wedues-
day, May the 9,b, when Judge Buchaoao
heard the returns to the rnlts 10 show csnee,
is'ued against the Sumter Telephone Mfg Co
on the motion Of atIorners for the Telephone
Mfg Co and against The Telephone Mfg Co
90 the notion Of attorneys OF the Sumter
Telephone Mig. Co quite crowd was pres
en-, 10 the Court House. The Telephone Mfg
Co is asking for an injunction against the
Sumter Telephone Mfg. Co aad G. T Mason
and F. C. Manuing. while Messrs Mason aod
Masulng, stockholders in the Telephone Mig.
Co are asking for the appointment Of
receiver to take charge Of thak company.
The Teephche Mfg. Co is represented hJ
Havusworth i Hay ynsworth and " & Lyles,
Esq, and The Sumter Telephone Mfg. Co is
represented by Lee 4 Heias aud JOS ".
Barn we'll, EeQ.
Al almoa, the same ground ia covered 10
both cases and the sane facts are in Issue it
ras agreed by the sttcsre;s to hear the re-
,ucns 10 both cssss before taking up the argu.
meuts The retaros aod afidavits in support
of the allegation contained therein are very
volumiuous.
Wbeo tho reading Of complaints ana
answers and numerous sffidavits and e1hib-
it's was concluded the arguments were oeeno.
W. H Lyles, Esq +, spoke in favor of the
motion for the grantiog Of an irjuoclion
sgainst the Sumter Telephone Mfg. Co and
against the application for the appointment OF
receiver for The Telephone Mfg. Co. He made
40 elaborate legal argument 10 the course OF
which he cited great nanber Of authorities
in support of hi, contention.
On the other eide the arguments we're made
by Messrs Jos. W. Barnwell aod R D. Lee,
who covered the ground ably and thorough
ly, piing up authority after authority to
support their position. At 8 o'clock Judge
Buchanan s6journed the sitting until 10
o'clock Thursday morning.
Thursday morning 81. Noise, Eco maee
his argument against the application for an
Injunction He spoke for several bonrs, re-
viewing the whole field of argument, citing
authorities in support Of bis position, and
replying to the argument of Mr. Lylee
Mr. Lyles replied 10 brief but clear cut
argument in which be quoted additional au-
tborltes 10 rebuttoI OF those produced by
the opposing attorneys.
l uC pG PClo 00!C 'pCu uou'''0 ~ y" y w ~
Buchauan and be will take the cases under
consideration
The cases are probably the most interest
ing from the legal point of view 90 account
os the points Of law in lesue. as we'll ss the
local Issues involved that have ever been
brought in a local court, and throughout fhe
bearing and the !euglby legal aud technical
arguments there was large and deeply in-
terested crowd presen: The attorneys for
both sides bad gone deeply into the Jaw bear
ing upon he points in i.sue and they made
the strongest possible presentation of the
cases from both sides.
In few words the main issues involved
are:
Io the application for an irjuuc,ion against
The Sumter Telephone Mfg. Co. the claim is
eet I'D that the nsme is similar to that of the
plaintiff corporation aod is on iofrogemeat
on the franchise of the plaintiff corporation
In the application for the appointment of a
receiver for the Telephone Mtg. Co.. the
plaintiffs, Messrs Masou and Manoipg slege
that they have been wrongtu!ly deprived OF
their pcsiror in the said corporation, ard
that the stfAirs Of the corporation are icing
misnanaged 10 ,ae delrimeot of the stock
ho!oe:s, sod that The sproiatmeb, Of re-
ce!ver is necessary tor the protection of The
stockholders