The Savannah morning news., 1904-02-16

equally clear that all the other con-
tentions raised on behalf of the de-
PENDANTS, such as multifariousness
and the doctrine of clean hands in
equity, have all been held by the
courts to be without force.
1t was also contended on behalf of
defendants that the Supreme Court of
this state has held favorably to their
views. This contention is based solely
Upon the fact that an application, sim
llar TO the present case, was made to
the Civil District Court for the parish
OF New Orleans, praying for an in
| junction similar to the one herein
prayed for. Upon the refusal of the
I injunction by the lower court an appfi-
cation was made to the Supreme Court
OF the state for a mandamus to COM
| pei the issuance of the Injunction.
which application was refused by the
supreme Court without reasons as
signed. 1t is absolutely incorrect to as
sumo that the Supreme Court believed
that the railroad company had no case
Warranting an injunction simply be-
cause that court refused to mandamus
the lower court to take action in a
matter which was clearly left to the
discretion of the lower court. And
there are other grounds upon which the
Supreme Court may have based it's ac-
tion without holding that, as matter
of law, no injunction should issue in
similar cases.
1T was also argued on behalf of de-
| PENDANTS, with great earnestness and
il sistence, that the public policy of this
| state and of the United States is op-
| posed TO the views of the law taken by
| complainants.
THE only fact presented in support
of the contention that the suit was in
| opposition to the public policy of the
! state of Louisiana is that certain
bill relating to railroad brokers was
! defeated in the state Legislature of
| 1902. 1t is obvious that that bill must
| have been intended to absolutely de-
| stroy and prohibit the entire business
| of railroad brokers, regardless of the
nature of the tickets dealt in. But
! the minority of the committee which
reported the bill clearly show by their
minority report that they, although
| opposed to the bill, were convinced
that a contract act not to transfer a
railroad ticket, under proper condi-
/ tions, of course, is binding and valid
and should be enforced.
1T can also be shown that there is i.C
announcement OF the public policy ol
the United States which could be held
to initiate herein against the complain
ants or in favor of the defendants II
SnOuld De specially nouced that In this
case there is no denial, but on the con-
| trary an admission that the defendants
deal in the class of tickets in question
and the defendants contend that they
| have the right to deal in them.
| THE matter therefore turns mostly
| if not entirely. on questions of law
upon all of which find against the de-
| PENDANTS.
I'm this case this court. through
| Judge Boarman, issued an injunction
! concerning the United Confederate Vet
! Gran tickets. after full argument. But
the matter has been reargued before
me do novo. as though this, court had
not already passed on the question OF
! the law involved. Judge Boarman hav-
| ing virtually declined to issue an in
! junction including all nontransferable
/ tikets to be issued in the future. l dc
not think / should do more at the pres
ent time than to order the Issuance OF
an injunction as to the nontransferable
Mardi Gras tickets.
1.-The railroad companies must give
in each case a bond of $4,000 to hold
the defendants harmless against any
damages in the case.
"A written opinion in the case will be
| filed to supersede the present state
ment."