Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-07-26
Gaseof Liquor Dealers Against
Brewing Companies.
NO STANDING IN COURT
BILL OF COMPLAINT DISMISSED
BY JUSTICE WRIGHT.
Compliments Had Privilege Of Pur-
chasing, but Not to Require Any
body to Sell Them Beer.

After a lengthy hearing in connection
with the proceedings instituted by James
| G. Leonard and Samuel G. Stewart, local
| retail liquor dealers. against the Abner-
| Drury Brewing Company, the National
Capitol Brewing Company, the Arlington
Brewing Company. the Washington Brew
| cry Company, and others, the object, in
| substance, being to enjoin the Brewers AS
ISOLATION from combining with certain en-
ployes of the Chr. Heurich Brewing Com
pany to compel the latter company to raise
the price of beer to Sc barrel. on the
threat Of the employees in question to stop
working for the company, Justice Wright
Of the Supreme Court Of the District Of CO.
lumbia this afternoon sustained demurrer
presented by the Washington Brewery Com
pany, and dismissed the bill of complaint.
Justice Wright held that the complainants
| had no right to maintain the action. They
| had no standing in court. 1t was explained.
| unless some right of theirs was endangered.
The complainants. Justice Wright ruled.
| had the privilege of purchasing beer. but
did not possess the right to require any
| body to sell them beer.
| eff the compliments have no such right"
| Justice Wright added. "then they cannot
| be concerned in what the price of beer
| shall be. On the face of the bill there is
| no showing of right as distinguished from
| privilege, and the compliments are without
| standing to maintain the action. The de-
murrer is sustained and the bill dismissed"
| A Large Attendance of Counsel.
| The attendance at the hearing was 50
| large. numerically. that a change was made
| from the room of Equity Court No. to that
Of Criminal Court No. 1. The compliments
| were represented by Attorney William q.
! Johnson, the Chr. Heurich Brewing Com
pany by Attorneys ]: ]. Darlington and
r T~y~r I,,ar nuytn
| Company by Attorney Charles W. Darr,
the Washington Brewery Company by At
torney Henry F. Woodland. the Arlington
| Brewing Company by Attorney l.. A
Bailey. the National Capital Brewing Com
| pany by Attorney Alexander H. Bell, and
| Louis S. Crown. Michael Cookery and Tim
othy Healy. who are connected with the
| labor organizations involved. by Attorney
| Michael ]. Colbert. The court was address,
ed by Attorneys Johnson. Woodland and
| Bailey only.
| In the demurrer of the Arlington Brew
| ing Company it was contended that the
! compliments had no interest in the mat
| ter of the alleged agreement between the
| members of the Brewers Association and
| that none of their rights were impugned.
| 1t denied that the compliments
| brought the suit in their own behalf. Ac-
| cording to the Arlington company. Leon
| Tobriner, a stakeholder, a director and the
| attorney of the Chr. Heurich Brewing Com
| pany. met the complainants at the office Of
i their attorney and prepared, dictated or
|
| plant. which was prepared at the instiga-
ton of the Chr. Heurich Brewing Company
| for the purpose Of advertising itself as the
| friend of retail liquor dealers. II was de-
| MED that the Brewers Association was
| formed to prevent competition in the man
| ufacture. sale and distribution of malt IL
| auors. The formation Of the association.
| it was added, was made necessary by the
| action OF the Chr. Heurich Brewing Com
| pany about eighteen months ago In reduc-
| Ing the price Of Tight beer from S.. 70 to
not ha rroI yxof ot, NOS dnotn mad
| is below the cost Of production.
| Attorney Woodland argued that the COM
plainants had no standing in court to ask
for the relief sought, and that their relief.
| If any, was through criminal prosecution
| under the antitrust law and not in court
| of equity
| TAbner-Drury Brewing Company.
The Abner-Drury Brewing Company. in
it's demurrer. charged that the action OF the
| compliments had been instituted by the
Chr. Heurich Brewing Company for the
| purpose of discrediting the other brewing
| CO n,panies and driving them out of busi-
| ness. 1t denied that conspiracy existed,
| and declared that the Heurich company, in
| fnstigati ting the proceedings. was catering
| "in a false, fraudulent and deceitful man
ner to the retail liquor dealers Of the Dis
trict of Columbia
| The only attempt ever made to dictate
| the price of beer here, according to the Abb
| ner Drury Company, was urged by the
| y,
defendants to comply with it's wishes was
| met with threat to sell beer for less than
! the cost of manufacture. There had been
| no conspiracy to cause a strike, it was set
| forth. The Abner-Drury company added
| that the proper proceeding would have been
| one at the instance of the United States
| and not by the compliments. The case was
| not one in which court Of equity should
| act by injunction.
The National Capital Brewing Company
| also filed demurrer setting forth, among
| other things, that the compliments were
not entitled to the relief asked. and that
| the action had been instigated by the Chr.
| Heurich Brewing Company.
| The answer of Messrs Crown, Cookery
| and Healy was to the effect that they had
| no information or knowledge as to a con-
| spiracy between the defendants. The Heu-
| rich company brought about reduction in
| the net price of beer per barrel from 500
| to $500. The defendants denied that any
| agreement had been entered into to induce
| the fremen to abrogate their contract of
| employment with the Heurich company, or
| that they had induced the fremen to quit
| work.
Attorney Johnson's Reply.
| Attorney Johnson. in reply to the argu-
| ments in behalf Of the defendants. declared
| that the latter had lost sight Of the con-
| tentIons of the bill Of complaint
| 1t charged he said, that the defendants
| by an unlawful combination were seeking
| to accomplish an unlawful act and were
| seeking by an unlawful combination to
| thereby cripple the retail liquor dealers
| persons engaged in peculiar business.
| In the opinion of Attorney Johnson, court
| Of equity had jurisdiction to act In the
| At this point Justice Wright declined to
| hear further arguments, and announced his
| ruling sustaining the demurrer and dis
| missing the bill.
| rEC