Pine Bluff daily graphic. (Pine Bluff, Ark.) 1893-1942, 1908-01-26
JUDGE ELLIOTT
SAYS THEY STICK
Refuses to Set. Aside the
$4,000 Fines Imposed
Upon Captain J. B. York
and Son, Robert York.
PETITION PRESENTED
No Intention to Violate the Injunction
Order Of the Jefferson Chancery
Court Plead the Defendants by
Their Attorneys advice Of Counsel.

refused to set aside two fines OF s1O,1
600 and $4,000 which he imposed upo1j
Captain r. York and his son, Robert
York, in the Jefferson Chancery Court
here on January 6. after the former
owners Of the 81 shares in the Bluff
City Lumber Company had been sight
ed to appear in his court and show
cause why they should not be fined for
contempt Of court in violating an Or
der issued by Chancellor Elliott, re-
straining them from holding a meet
ing at Little Rock and applying for
hankruptacy papers in the Federal
Court
"A petition was filed by Attorneys
Bridges, Woodbridge and CAN'T, S. NJ.
Taylor and Rose, Hemingway, Can
trell and Loughborough, counsel for
j the Yorks in the Chancery Court yes.
terday, asking that the court set aside
the judgments. The dismissal. Of the
two fines was asked on the grounds
that the injunction for violation Of
(which they were adjudged in contempt
OF court, was not within the issues
presented by the complaint in the
original case. That the order Of in
junction served upon them did not
show it was issued in this case or any
other case Of which the court had
jurisdiction. Because the Chancery
Court in issuing the said order did not
proceed with the issues rendered by
the pleadings in the said cause. That
the judgments rendered against each
Of the defendants was excessive.
The attorneys also pleaded that
their clients were not Intentionally
proceeding in contempt Of the process
Of the Chancery Court in doing the
acts for which they we're adjudged
guilty; that prior to the time OF hold
ing the melting Of the stockholders OF
the Bluff City Lumber Company on ac-
count OF which they were adjudged in
contempt of court, a copy Of the in
junction which was not entitled in the
the original case, was served upon
each Of them and they submitted the
order to their counsel and asked
whether or not they would be in con-
tempt OF court if they proceeded with
their meeting and pass resolution
acknowledging the inability OF the
Bluff City Lumber Company to pay it's
debts, and it's Willingness to be ad-
Indicated bankrupt. Council also
claims that they as the legal advisors
of the Yorks, after the matter had
been submitted to them and being
thoroughly informed as to the state
of the pleading and the issues and af-
ter examining the order Of injunc-
ton, advised the Yorks that in their
opinion, the petitioners would not
be in contempt Of the court II the
melting was held. The attorneys also
state in their petition that certain
other acts were contemplated at the
meeting, but the council advised the
defendants that such other action, II
taken, might bring them in contempt
of the court, and they accordingly re-
Trained from taking such action
The petitioners also claim that In
participating in the meeting they act
ed under the advice OF their council
in the honest belief that they would
not violate the orders OF the Chancery
Court or place themselves in contempt
Of its process; and " in their action
they did violate said order, it was not
their intention to do SO. On the con-
trary, if such had been their opinion
as to the effect OF their action, they
would not have taken it.
Chancellor Elicit made no comment
in refusing to grant the petition. His
written decree in the matter was filed
in the office Of the circuit clerk and
was just a refusal in plain language,
to grant the prayers of the petition
ers.
Judge ". E. Hemingway, OF Little