The evening Republican., 1902-06-28
Arsnraanf laenfd

States Circuit Couft to-day aHKumert
Was heard on a m0tlou TO dischaege1
the restraining order In the casa of
the Pennsylvanla Globe Gas Light
Company, Of Philadslphia VI lhs
American Lighting Company. The
defendant company was represented
by William Salisbury. Of the firm Of
Salisbury. Curtis and Ponder, Henry
Knight, Of Washington, D.. q,
William B. Greely. of Reading,
and Kiddle & Greedy, New York.
The plaintiff was represented BY
Andrew G.. Gray.
Among the grounds upon which
the motion was made was that the
bill of complaint did not show the
plaintiff to have an equitable inter.
est therein and upon the validity Of
the patent as well "a. the public In
convenience owing to the lights not
burning.
Mr.. Salisbury informed the court
that the atlidavits had been filed In
accordance with the order Of the
court.
Mr.. Gray said that the affldavits
came into his poss ession yesterday
afternoon. He consulted his clients
and as many Of the men were away
he could not get atfidavits in reply.
Mr.. Salisbury opposed the appli.
cation for continuance as the de-
fendant was liable 10 suffer great
loss. Your Honor says let their be
darkness and there is darkness in
the city of Wilmington. The de.
fen daut loses 1882 day and the
plaintiff but "a cents. II the com.
pauy is restrained, then it will
lose 5000. 900 while the other com.
pany loses but 5000.
Mr.. Gray replied that the neces-
sary affidavits could not be secursd
and an lrreparable inj:ry 10 beiug
wrought to the company that 10
not represented in the dollars aud
cents IN this case.
Mr.. Salisbury said the matter
authorized in the atfidavits was
such that the employes caunot
answer as it is loo al.
Judge Bradford said be could NOS Z.
see his way clear to grant themotton.
Monday has been set as the time for
filing Of atlidavitS. Counsel could ar
range about the attidavits and argu.
ment could be facilitated. The court
was willing to increase the bond Of
the plaintiff.
Mr.. Knight quoted authorities in
support Of the claim that the pre-
lilninary injunction was granted con-
trary to practice.
So far as he could see in the atll-
dayits there was nothing to show the
plaintiff to have any equitable inter-
est in this patent. The same lights
are now in use in Baltimore and not
a word has been said but as soon as
we come up here an injunction is sc.
cured against U.s. ..
Mr.. Greeley said there was nothing
to show the validity OF the patent Ga
the contrary we found lamp this
morning in Wilmington that has been
in use for more than ten years with
all the requirements of the alleged
patent globe. The patent Office shows
how trivial is the design.
The court said all these ma tiers
were applicable on the question Of
granting the restraining order. He
could not see why the plaintiff should
be excluded from submitting aflldavits
and exhibits before this case is decid-
ed.
The delay will be very slight. Tho
plaintiff ought to have an opportunity
to file its aflidavits and will then
consider the question. The court
will now consider any application
for an increase of the security.
Mr.. Salisbury said that after con-
sultatlon with his colleagues, We'd
nesday would suit for argument on
the motion for temporary injunc-
tion. He asked that the bond be
increased. He suggested $4,000 as
a bond. In addition to the fines OF
the day, $ls2,35 the gas is burning
and the estimated loss would be for
the days, 50, so.
The court placed the bond at 49,
500.
Mr. Gray refused to accept bond
from the defendant company, pend.
ing the decision of the case. /
The Court fixed Thursday as tho
time for hearing the motion for a
preliminary injunction.