The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-06-24

NJ onnrrs,ed nv the police. II the defendants, as
police onnccrs, can be thus restrained from super
vtsine the plaintiffs business and investigating the
question as TO whether crime has or has not been
upon the premises. 1t must DC because
a court Of equity has power to determine whether
or not a person has or has not been guilty OF a crime
and is subject to arrest, and II Is that auesuoh
which a court OF equity has no jurisdiction 70 de-
termine. As / Am convinced that the complaint
states no cause OF action and that the plaintiff can
not upon the trial succeed In obtaining an Injunction.
the court has no power. under the provisions or the
code to which attention has been called. to grant
an Injunction pending the ANAL Judgment
Justice Clarke, who granted at Special Term
the Injunction order In the Delaney case.
which was reversed by the Court Of Appeals.
is well satisfied with that decision and Is UNI
willing TO submit to a second reversal on what
he holds to be the same point. He says;
The Injunction In Delaney vs.. Flood as Misc,
OF. ard los App. Div- H2, and reversed 1873 ~. Y.
$50 was issued by me when sitting at the Special
Term. In view OF the discussion which that case
has had, It is important to consider precisely what
was before the Court Of Appeals and what that
court decided.
The Injunction order restrained the defendant
and all ofncers or agents under his control from
in any manner stopping any persons who may
desire to enter the premises known as No. 81 Riving
ton street . . or voluntarily informing them
or any person that the hotel conducted therein Is
a disorderly place, or that It Is likely to be raided
by the police department" . or that " a
raid should be made upon said premises any person
found therein at the time would be liable 10 arrest,
or by interfering In any other way by voluntary
statements as to the character OF said premises,
or threats of possible raids TO be made In or upon
them, or by interfering with any person they may
see going into said premises, OF by informing any
person they may see going into said premises. or
any person In or upon said premises, that the said
premises Is a house OF prostitution or notorious
In the community, or Is liable to be raided, or In any
way interfering with said premises by voluntary
statements as TO Its character or possible raids"
That Is, the order did not cnjoln the police from in
specting the premises. from posting onncers In or
around or In front of Il. or from making arrests
therein or raids thereon. II did not even restrain
them from answering inquiries as TO the character
Of the place. All II did do was TO restrain the police
ofnccrs from volunteering statements in regard
to the premises. in other words. the Injunction
sought only 70 restrain the destruction of a bust
ness by volunteered statements tending to scare
customers. the court saying: II such conduct were
approved. any legitimate business might be ruined"
And II was this order that the Court OF Anpen,.
reversed. saying: The whole subject may be briefly
summed up in the statement that we see moth
ing IN the case at bar TO take u out OF the
ordinary rule that equity will not interfere TO pre-
vent the enforcement OF the criminal law: and
answered the certified question. VIII equity inter
vene to restrain such acts'" In the negative.
Feeling that the Court Of Appeals has de6n,te,v
decided the question In a case in which I wrote in
the line used by Mr.. Justice Lauehlin in his opinion
herein, and having been taught that the Appellate
Division should not attempt to reverse the Court
OF Appeals, and that II Is not even safe tn st,emp,
TO distinguish, ] dissent from the conclusion OF my
brethren. and think that the order appealed from
should be reversed, with costs. s'
In all probability this group Of cases will
be appealed to the Court OF Appeals and
the question settled once for all as TO whether
there is no exception to the doctrine laid down
In the Delaney case or whether a court OF equity
can be invoked to protect law abiding citi-
zens from oppression by the police In the
conduct Of business not reasonably open to
/ suspicion.