New-York tribune., 1903-04-07
HARTMAN WINS.
KEENE TO APPEAL CASE.
Southern Pacific Election Deferred
Until after Nesc Trial.

Cincinnati. APRIL 6-Judge II. II. Lurton, In
the United States Court to-day refused to grant
injunction restraining the Union Pacific Rail-
road Company from voting its 100000 shares or
Southern Pacific stock in the election of the latter
company set for Wednesday He also refused TO
enjoin the Southern Pacific from disposing of its
stock in the Central Pacific Company or its
leases Of that road the Union Pacific. saying
that no evidence had been presented to show
that the Southern Pacific directors intended to
turn the Central Pacific TO the Union Pa
ciic and that it would be time enough to apply
for an injunction when one was needed
AS soon as Judge Lurton finished reading his
decision. Senator Foraker, representing the
Keene interests gave notice of an appeal ana
asked that a stay of the Southern Pacific cleo
ton be granted. pending this appeal Mr. Max
well and Judge Humphrey, for the defendants
agreed TO the stay. as otherwise the appeal
wo,,ld he ineffective II decided that the
stockholders should meet as previously ar
ranged and elect a chairman after which they
,yould adjourn subject TO the call Of the chair
man when the appeal had been disposed of.
The decision was concerned principally with
the question Of restraining the Union Paclhc
from voting its Southern Pacific shares, and the
refusal was on the ground that the Union Pa
cifc was not made party TO the suit Judge
Irrton first described the grounds upon "hicn
,ha right of voting its Southern Pacific shares
co,,l5 he denied to the Union Pacific. that the
shares had been illegally issued. that the mold
ing OF them by the Union Pacifc was unIa"iui
or against the public welfare. or that It's man
aqement of the road so seriously teopardized the
r7rorerrv rights of the minority as TO JUSTIFY
turning the Union Pacific out OF the control ana
,,lacin- the road in the hands of the minority
in stoclholdinc interest. To grant an lnJnhc-
1jon on any Of these grounds. the court sald'
II was indispensable that the Union raoiii'
should be party the suit.
The question of whether il was party 10 'Ile
sniff vas then discussed eXhaustively. ana the
co,7clusion was reached that it could not he SO
considered on the ground that it was STOCK
holder in the Southern Pacific, as the SUIT was
moi brought against the Southern Pacific IN
or6ar 10 include every stockholder. but it was
desired that the decision should aEeCt liie
Union Pacific only Nor could 1t be consldeFeu
2 Marty 10 the suit because Z. h hartman ndu
made an affidavit in the case and the Union
Pacihc's shares in the Southern facllc sloou
IN his name as trustee Appearance as a VII
ness did not make a party TO a suit AS
for the identity of interest IN thaI lhe VI
rectors of the Union Pacific were ais directors
Of the Southern Pacific: even so, in suit against
the Sourheru Pacific they represented that COM
pany and not some other company, hot AaIlIeu @
in the suit with which they might be con-
nected- ia :,
For all these reasons. Judge Lurton salo' ne
-7,i,st decide that the Union Pacific was not a
PARTY TO the suit, and refuse the injunction.
The charges made against the Hartman party
mana cement Of the Southern Pacific were not
discussed, Judge Lurton saying that tney coold
only be taken UP in a suit 10 whch the Union
Pacific a party