Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1902-09-17

-, tu.tiee wiswsit. OF tho supreme
s.ss.i court OF Maine, granted last sat
s.v Al Ellsworth DEGREES TOR temporary
.s.s,tleus 20 the ScscoAst Packing Co.,
~ equity cssss brougat last May
= -, f,,on NJ. Pike and others, OF Lubec,
a,ed IA connection thsrawith an en-
ssa.,,vo opinion covering both the facts
"a tbs law pertinent to the cases.
Tness Bill. in equity ~are brought BY
-. as.cos., Packing CO. sskIng for In
s-..,,ons 10 restrain the respondents
- violating their written agree
-..u,. not to carry on, directly or
..s,,s.,ty. the ssrdine business, Tor q
-, !, ten years from May IL, 1893, with
!. IN miles OF Easspost. These agrss-
...u.. wsre entered into at the time OF
-. al. Of individual packing plants to
the corporation.
res.e bills 10 equity asked Tor both nnal
,u,vncttons, and also temporary iniane-
tens pending proceedings. A bearing
-. maid at Mschiss last July upon the
,.,,,,on OF the bills ssking Tor temporary
,.s.ne,loos. Tue chief justice reserved
~. decision relative 10 tho prayers tor
,suuorary gnjancsioDs. and At the bearing
lad saturday granted them, a. Just stated.
THN pEyKsss.
Tas ruspon dents contend, To substance,
,hattas seacusss Packing Co. Ia a cor
,oy.,Ion organized tor and carrying oct
an,astal purposes Ia the establishment
n . monopoly. restricting composition,
eoalrolling prices, limiting psodaetion.
etc. .ad therefore. generally, In vtoistion
Of aasi-trast lass.
TuE cowpEaAfaAwTas REPLY.
rse complainant contends; First, that
the respondents are not 10 q position 20
.ss ap shls defense, inasmach as they sisli
,rsaln the large considerations paid them
by ias sraeosss Psckiag Go. Tor their
various plants, and shn agreement above
msnfsousa not TO engage 10 tho ssgdine
bgsiaes.: second, that the defense SET Up
Is q matter that aaoald asss ne deter.
mined BY proceedings 10 she natns Of tho
Stale, IL the allegations were true, snd
that such defense eauid not be sst up Id
eaElssasaI proceedings OF thss natutss and
third, that II hupghE Ices thsa halt 81
the sabine plants 80 shis session. beiag
en- Insufficient number 10 10 any wsy
eoatfal ms business; THAI IL bad right
to pareh4sc ono OF many plsats; that ths
parekasa aud placing under one manage
rasut various plants was for tho purposes
Of economy Ia expense, labor and time
and not tor any unIswfot purpose; that to
has conducted ils business affairs ta al
entirely proper and iswfal manner
ana that its aim slwsys has been. aud Il,
10 produces better article and al less
expense 10 ths consumer.
To THE Law COURT.
These 6scEccs were in favor OF ths Sea,
eozs; Packing Co.. on Is inotioa f0r pro-
Hmssssy tnIunetioas, and direct that tsni'
posAsy inianetlous be issued enIoinlns ane
restraining tho respondents, their servants
sxeuts and employees from directly OF ia
directly engaging ia be business OF paeS'
sag, eariag or canning sardtna@ OF sNf'
dine herring, or In the sale thereof, sxecp'
- .hs agents OF employees OF tbs Sea
coast Packing Co., lie Representatives OF
ssslgas, wlshsn 30 mile OF PASSPORT, sue,
temporary ioiaacsions TO be In force pend
lag the rnsl decision OF The cases, o.
uata farther order Of the court.
fSJuSCgioss GRANTED
A. the same time sna place, the eaSs'