The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-01-13

II 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. A great deal of interest has been
manifested in the matter because it is
claimed by the cOmplalnants that the pro-
ceedings against the company are IN the
nature of an attempt to stop the encroach-
ments Of a corporation upon the rights OF
private citizens.
The case against the Standard Oil Com
pany is the resell 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 usinS a certain tank built upon its
property in Southeast Washington.
The original proceedings were instituted
in January, 1897. and were in the form Of
a petition for Injunction asked for by John
c. Oeser 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
petitioners being property owners u the
Oil Company, alleged that the oils which
II was believed the company intended TO
store in the new tank were infammable
combustible, and dangerous and liable TO
explode az any time through the careless
ness Of the employees of the defendant and
so destroy the property OF the complain
ants. Il was also alleged that nOXious
gases. odors. and vapors were generated
by the OILS stored by the defendant, and
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
papy. coTrobating the allegations set forth
we're also filed in support OF the petition.
After a hearing OF the complaint. and
the answer OF the defendant SUltice lag
ner, sitting in equity, granted a 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 oil
or gasoline. From his decision the de-
PENDANT 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 10 the suit
have been takine testimony with a view 10
bringing the case tl final he1r;ug. While
the petitioners were taking evidence Iasy
summer, it IS alleged that a. was discos-
cred that tne defendants were y.oldtiHg Tho
order Of the court by using he tank for
the purpose Of storing oil. Through their
attorneys they then applied 10 the Supreme
Court for the District for 4 rule TO issue
against the officers OF the Standard Oii
Company, requiring them TO show cause
why they should not be held IN contempt
for refusing 10 Otey the previous order Of
the court. restrain lg them from using the
tank in question.
When this application was filed by The
petitioners the attorneys for the defendant
filed a motion 10 strike from the record
certain testimony taken by the complain
ants on the ground that it was added after
the time allowed TO either side for the
submitting Of evidence. Both these Ques-
tons were argued q leUgth 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. BIandenburg. Worthiugton. Heald &
Fraley, and the petitioners by Messrs C.
Maurice Smith and Padgett & Forrest.