Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-20
STANDARD COMPANYS TANK
Decision Rendered by Justice Cole in Pend
ing Litigation.
Case of Oeser and Others Against the
Company-RuIe Discharged-Evi-
dence Stricken Out.

Mr.. Justice Cole of the District Supreme
Court today rendered an interesting opin-
| ion in the case of John G. Oeser and 9TH
| ers against the Standard Oil Company. in
| which case the complainants property own
| erS and residents of South Washington,
| seek to enjoin the defendant company from
| further operating its plant in the vicinity
| of the foot of South Capitol street. The
! suit was instituted January %. 1897. the
| complainant charging, among other things,
| that noxious odors escaped from the COM
| panys plant, injuring the health of the
| people residing in its vicinity, and also that
| the companys practice of storing oils
| therein endangered the lives and property
| of the compainants because of the alleged
| liability of the oils to explosion. The case
| was originally heard by Mr.. Justice Hag-
| ner. who, February 10, 1897, issued an in
| it from further operating its plant and
| constructing new tanks and placing oil
| therein. The company thereupon noted an
| appeal to the Court of Appeals. filing
supersedeas bond in the sum of $4,000. The
| Court of Appeals, however: reversed the
| action of Mr.. Justice Hagner, except as 10
| his prohibition of the companys erection
| and use of a new tank. Thereupon both
| sides proceeded to take testimony in sup
| port and against, respectively, the allie
| cations contained in the bill of complaint.
| Alleged DfsObedience.
| Pending these proceedings, it was charged
| by the compliments that the company had
| disobeyed the terms of the preliminary in
| junction issued by Mr.. Justice Hagner. hav-
ing, they contended, placed oil in the new
| tank. A rule upon their motion, was is
| sued against the company, requiring it's
| managers to show cause why they should
not be punished for contempt of court. The
1 Lot, Tod in, ovid
| the taking of testimony was being carried
| on, certain evidence which the defendants
\ claimed objected to. the company contend
| ing that the objectcd-to evidence should
| have been submitted in chief. in it's opin-
| ion it was really evidence In chief. These
| two points were argued last November be-
fore Mr.. Justice Cole, and today he dis
posed of them.
| At the outset Justice Cole discussed at
| length the rules governing the introduction
| of testimony in such cases, saying It is
| well settled that the complainant must in
| troduce in chief all the evidence he relies
| upon to support his allegations, and that
| the defendant must then submit such evil
| dence as he relies upon to disprove these
| allegations. OF course. said the justice, it
| is always in the discretion of the court to
| admit evidence out of its regular order
| which the party desiring to submit it has
| clearly omitted by mistake or inadvertence,
| or which was not Obtanable at the proper
time. But. he pointed out. there must al
| ways be shown to the court good reasons
| for such a departure.
| He then discussed the evidence which the
| company claims was improperly admitted,
saying it is quite evident that such teSti-
| mony does not show condition of affairs
| different from that existing when the com
| plainants filed their bill of complaint.
| Therefore. with some exceptions, he held
| that the motion of the company's counsel
| to exclude such testimony must be granted.
| Mr.. Justice Cole held that the testimony
of one of tho complainants' witnesses, tend
| ing to disprove the assertion of the COM
pany that its oil is not dangerous. and that
| there have been no explosions of it, had
| been properly introduced. He also neld
| that it was proper for the compliments to
| show by the testimony of witness that
| the alleged spark arresters On locomotives
| operating in the vicinity of the cOmpany'S
| plant are sometimes out of order and do
| not. therefore, always prevent the escape
| of sparks.
! Matter of Doubt.
| Referring to the alleged disobedience by
the company of Mr.. Justice Hagner's order
| as to Its use of the new tank. Justice Cole
said it is doubtful how the Court of APP
| pcals or the United States Supreme Court
would hold in the question as to whether
| the noting of the appeal by the company
| and its filing Of the supersedeas bond sus-
| pended the operation Of the injunction is
| sued by Mr.. Justice Hagner. There are
| some very strong decisions on. both sides
| of the question, he remarked. although
|
| tiCe Hagner could have directed that the
| injunction should be suspended pending the
| acton of the Court of Appeals. 1t appears
| that oil was placed in the new tank. but as
| to the exact time there is some loubt
| The real question, stated the court. was
| whether there had been a wllfu violation
| of the terms of the preliminary injunction.
| Counsel for the company had shown that
| it was upon their advice that the oil was
| placed in the tank, but that it was not al
| lowed to remain therein long. the COM
| panys attorneys advising that the safest
| way would be to remove it. Justice Cole
| said he found no willful violation of the in
| junction, the only testimony introduced by
| the complainants on the subject tending to
| support the contention of willful violation
| being that of party who was, in effect, an
| accOmplice. That witness was not corrob-
| Grated, however, and therefore neither the
| court nor any jury would convict the
| unsupported testimony of an accOmplice.
No injury appears to have been suffered
| by the compliments because of the placing
| of the oil in this new tank, he stated, and
| II they had suffered any injury, the court
| could and would have fined the company,
| even though it had acted upon the advice
| Of counsel and in good faith, such sum
as would have recompenSed the complain
| ants for the damage suffered by them be-
| cause of said alleged violation of the in
| Junction.
| The Rule Discharged.
| In conclusion. Justice Cole said he could
| see no occasion or reason for Furnishing the
| company for its alleged contempt of the
court, he expressing doubt as to whether
| there had really been any violation of the
| terms of the injunction. He, therefore, dis
| charged the rule, stating that he would
| strike out certain of the compliments tes-
| timony, which he held to have been i'm
| properly introduced in rebuttal Messrs.
| Charles NJ Smith and Edwin Forrest, coun-
! sci for the compliments, obtained leave to
A Mail Clerks Experience
AND WHAT CAME OF IT