The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1905-11-27

lole NO. 1854.
or any Of thenr did, in fact, yiolat,
/ the injunction order, thus improper
" awarded, they are IN contempt IL
50 doing.
cit may be stated in general terms
that every. reasonable, prudent and
good citizen will observe and obey
any order of a court OF i6stiee.
whether the order berright or wrong
fit is right, he viii obey it because
it is right /; if wrong, he will obey il
until it is set aside and vacated and
that none but the vicious and un-
reasonable will decline or refuse to
obey the order of a court, however
erroneous it may be, unless it be so
apparently absolutely void that no
doubt can arise touching its impro-
priety and not then unless to obey
it would be violative of lawful
duty OF a binding moral OF legal OBJ
legation.
""The defendants, it is claimed,
were advised of the award of the in
junction order and knew its terms.
If so advised, it then became and
was their duty to observe and obey If
whether improperly or enormously
awarded or not On the contrary
they disregarded it. Their conduct
md language, if correctly reported
was arrogant and reprehensible, IN
dicative of an absolute disregard
md disrespect for law, justice and
the duties of good citizenship. But
they deny both the conduct and Ian
guage imputed to them.
at has been held in this state.
that, where the persons enjoined
have knowledge from information of
the award of an injunction against
them, whether the writ has been is
sued or not they must observe and
obey the requirements of the order
that such lnowldge is sufficient
notice.
ct is contended by counsel for
plaintiff, who cite good authority in
of the proposition, that it
matters not whether the order was
void or valid, if it has been know
ingly violated the defendants should
be punished. But punishment
should not and must not be inflicted |
unless and until it is clearly deter
mined that punishment is proper !
under the circumstances of this case
however wrongly and rash4y the de
PENDANTS have conducted themselves.
'tThe conduct attributed within |
does not of itself justify the court
IN retaliating in kind. Neither
court nor individual are .infallible. |
The very best OF judges err, especial
ly upon ex parte proceedings where
but one view is presented and espec-
tally where it is necessary to move
rapidly toNprevent some Immediately |
threatened and impending danger to |
personal and property rights, but
while mistakes are so made courts of
Justice cease to be and remain such
unless they willingly correct any de-
parture from established course of |
procedure, and return to the proper
administration of justice and
equity.
Besides contempt proceedings
being criminal, and the fines there
for payable into the public treasury |
must, as we'll settled by authorities
in this state, the conduct constitut-
ing the contempt, must be establish
ed beyond Il reasonable doubt before
the defendants can be so punished
therefor. While from the view
have already announced it is really
unnecessary to refer to the question
Of proof, yet, were it necessary, il
may be confidently stated that the
1ffidavits taken and filed on behalf
of the defendants tend very strongly
70 show that no contempt was either
or committed. They tend
very strongly to show that the de
PENDANT company, through its
agents. entered into negotiations
with Mrs. Wilkinson through her
agents, for permission to do what
and only what was done by them
that such permission was granted a.
they understood it, that upon such
understanding they proceeded and
kept within its terms and when nOti-
fled of the Injunction order nothing
further was done. by the defendants
on the plaintiffs property. These
1ffidavits are in direct conflict with
those of the plaintiff, but they are
sufficient in my judgment to raise
such reasonable doubt in the minds
of any disintercsted persons, both rs