The evening times., 1900-01-13
A DECISION LOOKED FOR
Ruling Expected Monday in the
Standard Oil Contempt Case.
History of the Litigation Which Led
Up to the eProceedings-The Alleged
Upon Private Rights Citizens
. Appeal to the District Courts.

1t is expected that Justice C. C. Cole
of the Supreme Court of the District will
on Monday announce his decision in what
is known as the Standard Oil contempt
| case. great deal of interest has been
! manifested in the matter because ii is
claimed by the complainants that the pro-
ceedings against the company are in the
nature of an attempt to stop the encroach-
ments of corporation upon the rights of
! private citizens.
The case against the Standard Oil Com
! pany is the result of the alleged violation
! of a mandate of the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court of the District issued
about two and half years ago enjoining
it from completing the construction of
and using certain tank built upon its
property in Southeast Washington.
The original proceedings were instituted
in January, 1897, and were in the form of
petition for injunction asked for by John
G. 0eser and William j. Downey, who
complained that the defendant was about
to erect a certain oil tank on its premises
for the storage of oils and gasoline. The
neighborhood of the plant of the Standard
| Oil Company, alleged that the oils which
1t was believed the company intended to
store in the new tank were inflammable,
combustible, and dangerous and liable TO
explode at any time through the careless
ness of the employees of the defendant and
so destroy the property of the complain
ants 1t was also alleged that noXious
gases, odors, and yapors were generated
NV ha oil b. bo Hofa nd
the health, happiness, and safety of the
families OF the petitioners was destroyed
by fear of an explosion.
A number of affidavits signed by resi-
dents and property owners in the vicinity
of the premises of the Standard Oil Com
pany. corrobating the allegations set forth,
we're also filed in support of the petition.
After hearing of the complaint, ard
the answer of the defendant. SUctice Hag-
nert sitting in equity, granted temporary
injunction. enjoining the Standard Oil
Company from completing the tank which
was then in the course of construction. and
from using il for the purpose of storing 0il
or gasoline. From his decision the de-
fendant took an appeal 20 the Court of
Appeals Tor the District. which court, after
a fun investigation Of the matter, affirmed
the decision of the lower court
Since that time both parties TO the suit
bringing the case 10 a final h helting. While
the petitioners were taking evidence LAST
summer, it is alleged that 1t was discos-
cred that the defendants were violating the
order Of the court by using he tank for
the purpose OF storing oil Through their
attorneys they then applied TO the Supreme
Court for the District for 4 rule to issue
against the officers of the Standard Oh
Company, requiring them TO show cause
why they should not be held in contempt
for refusing 20 obey the previous order of
the court, restraining them from using he
tank in question.
When this application was filed by the
petitioners the attorneys for the defendant
filed a motion to strike from the record
certain testimony taken by the complain
ants, on the ground that ii was added after
the time allowed TO either side for the
submitting Of evidence. Both these ques-
tions were argued al lepgth before Justice
Cole early in November, and since then he
has had the matter under advisement.
At the hearing the Standard Oil Com
pany was represented by Messrs. Clarence
A. BTandenburg, Worthington, Heald &
Fraley, and the petitioners by Messrs. c.
Maurice Smith and Padgett & Forrest.