The San Francisco call., 1903-12-16
Harbor Commissioners Revoke
Permits to Use Wharves Of
State for Sale Of Products
and Dealers Receive Notice
WHOLESALERS AGAIN
DENY JURISDICTION
Board Makes Answer in Court
and Requests the Attorney
General and Other Counsel
to Help Fight for the Law

Two moves OF interest were made
yesterday relating TO the enforcement
Of the Woodward law, the purpose or
which is to discourage discrimination
and conspiracy in the sale and purchase
Of perishable produce. The Harbor
Commissioners revoked the permits to
sell on the wharves Of the State in this
city, earlier issued TO L. g. Sresovich
& Co, Mitchell g. Goodall Ivancovich
& Co., G. Berti & Co. and Garcia d
Maggini. wholesalers. The Commits
sioners last week revoked the permits
Of Wolf & Sons, Wetmore Brothers, L.
. scatena & Co. and McDonough & Run
yon. making altogether nine wholesale
firms that have lost their permits.
The four last named firms have Sc
cured from the Superior Court a tenn
porary injunction TO restrain the Har-
Dor Commissioners from interfering
with their selling perishable products.
Very likely the five firms that lost
their permits yesterday viii also go
into court. Attorney W. H. Davis in
formed the Harbor Commissioners yes
terday of his plan for meeting the
court proceedings already taken by the
wholesale produce dealers. He had pre-
pared an answer 10 the suits in the Su-
perior Court against the board in the
case OF WetmOre Bros. and demurrers
IN the cases Of Wolf & Sons, I. Sea-
tena & Co. and 8IcDOnough &, Runyon
Attorney Davis explained to the Com
missiOners that the matter at issue
could be reached more quickly by fl
ing an answer and pressing for an
early hearing than by moving directly
for a dissolution of the temporary IN
functions against the board. The Com
missioners agreed with him and au-
thorized him. on his own suggestion, to
associate with him in the case Judge
F. A Davis and TO request Attorney
General Webb TO also act with him in
defense Of the Woodward law.
FILES AN ANSWER.
Later in the day Attorney Davis fled
the answer Of the Harbor Commission
ers in the Wetmore case. In this an
swer il was denied that the Wetnore
Bros. never received any notice Of vio-
lation Of the Woodward law and Of the
agreements contained in the permit is
sued to the firm by the HarbOr Com
missiOners.
AIA4 AAAE Ny4AAA al 81 AEduS AllE cll-
swer, prior TO the cancellation Of said
permit they Cthe Harbor Commission
ers) gave TO said plaintiff due notice
that il was charged with a violation Of
the agreements contained in its said
application for said permit; and that
at a time and place stated in said no.
tice said board would investigate such
charge and give it a hearing: that such
notice and hearing were duly given
and had at same time and place so
noticed. as aforesaid"
Concerning the hearing that took
place just prior TO the taking from
Wetmore Bros. Of their permit to sell
on the State wharves, the answer says
IN part:
That on December 3. 1903. the said board
proceeded with such investigation and hear
ing, said plaintiff appearing by its secretary.
John @. WetmOre. and its attorney. j. b.
Reinstein; and other parties charged with
ike violation OF like agreements also appear
ing, the plaintiff and said other parties pre-
Eented 10 ana had fled with this board their
5oint answer That after the reading OF said
answer the board proceeded to take tes-