The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1909-09-18
Judge Golf eEns an In
Junction to Thomas All
Burl
COMPANY HA RIGHT
To Make and Enforce the
Rule and There No
D-iscriTmlnahon.
BuFke Here.
OiscrIrIIlnaLIon


Injunction asked f0r III the suit of
Thomas h. Burke aga4nst THOMAS G.
Plat FreEdent Of che United
States R5 npauy In which
Burke mpet Che express
conpago qupr teollect on
tdelVef hesshthadgbeen pending
sonne Hm
JudEss dediop m full Is as
folloVs
The cor1pIafnaHE q duly licensed
retail liquor deala Whose place of
business Is at .ClarksDprg West vtr-
gthin, alleges that che United States
Express Company fcommon carrier.
doing business Ineh5 district, un-
reasonaby and tll6gally fails and re-
rfuses to receive from him and to
transport and deliver liquors ordered
of him. when tendsred to be shipped
'tconect on denyeEs 10 any OF his
.custouae residing at any place where
saidemp6ny II epBaged business.
greatly tOe1lM loss and INJURY.
Complainant asKa the court to re-
strain said eNprea company: Its ON
GERS andaEeuts froEB falling to per-
Gor4n Its duty AZ common carrier,
and ff6m refdsing1do receive. trans
port and deliver q eOmplainant's
,consEgnees. upon the payment OF the
reasonable and ~cuGtonGary exprem
charEespaGSagea Hduor ordered
of. hlled ana tendeEEd BY him to that.
company 3 transportation and de-;
1fvery. Ibp8h collect pmsdellYery and,
Otherwise. On the sneAmanner and
under fhe same Snditto@ as other
goods. WARS hTerchandfSe are
TRANSPORTED anddeBNered by DEFEND
Pendlns temporary
retEatufng charaeteEwas
pa3ed
The 6pmplain-
anE tsgniaH Sensed retail ne
auor Dealer, dofngsbus3Res as set out
In his bill: that the defendant. Thorn
C. Plat, Is the ~prestdAntS of the
United States Express COmbaA9a adj
mIts that the company has been and
now Is engaged as an expires COM
,pany doing business In West Virginia
and elsewhere as set out In the bill:
that the United States Express
Company has refused to r%eceive,
transport ana deliver liquors ordered
of complainant. rendered by him to
shipped collect. on delivery The
answer also admits that h express
company makes special contracts with
6ENIp DGTS ny WIlICI uAuGELdhSS -
collect in certain Instances from the
consIEnee 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 APP
piled for ii. the company having re-
served the right to make h collect
on delivery contract with certain
shippers, and to refuse to make 1t with
others. That while intoxicating
liquors have been received and for
warded, 1t has always been don sub-
ject to reasonable rules and regula-
tions found necessary to protect the
interest OF the company. n It's pat
rons, which rules have been changed
from time to time as h situation re-
quired. until April 18th, 1908, when
all LIQUOR shipments &C. o. d. were.
discontinued.
When the motion for a restraining
order was submitted for my consider
alton, in connection with h bill and
afidavits filed with It, as also the attl-
davits submitted by the defendant, I,
refused the decree asked for, and di-
rected tina the proofs be taken for
use on the fnaf hearing.
Important questions OF law and
practice, raised by the demurrer to
the bIu-whlch was overruled-would
be further alluded to were 1t lot that
the Conclusion i now reach renders
their consideration unimportant
The case OF Crescent Liquor Com
pany vs.. Plat. 14s Fed. s95. hereto
fore decided by this court. has some
points similar to those now involved.
but the defense in That case was
criiefly based upon a statute which the
court found Itself compelled to dIsre-
gard because of Its mountaineering.
In that case the express company re-
fused to accept from the complainant
any shipments of Intoxicating liquors
TO DO delivered at certain points in
the state OF west Virginia, whether
&C. .. d. or not, while at the same
time 1t was receiving and transport
ing such Packages for other liquor
dealers.
In the case of Davis Hotel Company
v. Plat, IN denying the pnotion for a
temporary injunction this court said:
ut is quito evident in h present
case that Discrimination against the
complainant exists, but 1t does not
necessarily follow that hi rules and
regulations noR relied on, by virtue
OF which such Discrimination e
shown; are uureasonabIe,' Similar
language was uss6by the court when
b reStrnfntnE order was refused In
Observation-Disclosures