The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1909-09-23
Judge Golf Refuses an In
junction to Thomas HI.
Burke Here.
COMPANY HAS RIGHT
To Make and Enforce the
Rule and There is No
Discrimination.

l. ~ - ~ AYsheIiah tNfUh VI TIE OuAeu
States Circuit Court has refused the
Injunction asked for In the suit OF
Thomas H. Burke against Thomas G.
Platt as president Of the United
States Express Company in which
Burke sought TO compel the express
company to ship liquor COLLECT on
delivery. The suit had been pending
some time.
Judge Goff's decision in full Is as
follows:
The complainant. a duly licensed
retail liquor dealer. whose place o,
business Is at clarksburg, West Wiz.
lginia, alleges that the United states
Express Company. a common carrier
doing business in this district, un.
reasonably ana illegally fails and re.
fuses to receive from him and 10
transport and deliver liquors ordered
tof him. when. rendered TO be shipped
collect on delivery" TO any of his
customers residing at any place where
said company " engaged IN business
II osNhtAy w iiin tuSh anu lLluIY.
Complainant asks the court to re.
strain said express company. Its Off.
GERS and agents from failing 10 per.
form its duty as a common carrier
and. from refusing to receive, trans.
port and deliver to complainant's
consignees. upon the payment of the
reasonable and customary exnress
charges. packages of liquor ordered
of, filled and rendered by him to tina,
company for transportation and de.
livery. both collect ON delivery and
otherwise, dn the same manner and
under the same conditions as othe,
goods wares and merchandise are
Transported and delivered by defend.
ant. Pending the suit a Temporary
Restraining order of like character was
prayed for.
The answer admits that complain
ant Is a regularly licensed retail IL
quor dealer doing business as set out
in his bill; that the defendant, -rhom-
as c, Platt Is the PRESIDENT of the
United States Express Company: 9ad.
mits that the company has been and
now is engaged as an express conn
pany doing business in West Virginia
and elsewhere as set out In the bill:
admits that the United States Express
Company has refused to receive,
transport and deliver liquors ordered
lof complainant. rendered by him to
be shipped collect on delivery" The
ANSWER also admits that the express
company makes special contracts with
shippers by which 1t undertakes TO
collect in certain instances from the
consignee the purchase price of the
shipment, for which a special charge
is made. but insists that such service
has never been offered to all who an
piled for it, the company having re-
served the right to make the collect
on delivery" contract with certain
shippers, and to refuse to make It with
others. That while intoxicating
LIQUORS have been received and for
warded. It has always been done sub
1ect to reasonable rules and regula-
lions found necessary to protect the
interest OF the company, and its ,pat-
rons, which rules have been changed
from time o.ttme as the situation re-
quired, until April 18th, 1908. when
all LIQUOR shipments &c. o. D." were
discontinued.
When the motion for restraining
order was submitted for my consider
alton, In connection with the bill and
atitdavits filed with 1t. as also the atti-
davis submitted by the defendant. i
refused the decree asked for, and d.
rected that the proofs be taken for
use on the final hearing.
Important questions of law and
practice. raised by the demurrer to
the bill-which was overruled-would
be further alluded to were 1t not that
the conclusion now reach renders
their consideration unimportant
The case of Crescent Liquor Conn
pany Va. Platt. 14s Fed. ss5. hereto
fore decided by this court, has some
points similar to those now involved.
but the defense In that case was
chiefly based upon statute which the
court found itself compelled to disre-
gard because Of Its unconstitutionallty.
In that case the express company re-
FUSED to accept from the complainant
any shipments of intoxicating LIQUORS
to be delivered at certain points inl