The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1910-11-20
FULL TEXT OF
SPEER'S RULING
IN COOPER CASE
INTERESTING POINTS OF LAW
DETERMINED IN CASE WITH
LOCAL END.
Result Of Case Was Victory for Judge
Max Isaac, Of This City, Who Ap-
peared FOR Former Brunswick Man.
aser Of Western Union Company.

Considerable interest has been
manifested in legal circles and
among people generally in the case
OF Cooper VS.. the Western Union Tel
egraph Company, suit for damages,
which the defendant company en-
deavired to take to the United States
court from the city court of Bruins
wick. The case was argued before
Judge Speer in Macon Friday, the
Western Union being represented by
w. L. Clay, of Savannah, and Cooper
by Judge Max Isaac, of this city, and
Talley & Howard, of Macon. The de-
cision OF Judge Speer in full is as
follows:
"In this case, John A. Cooper
against the Western Union Tele.
graph company The defendant re-
moved this suit to the circuit court
of the United States for the Eastern
division Of the Southern district OF
Georgia The plaintiff sought to re.
cover damages alleged to have been
sustained by him because of what
is avered to be malicious prosecu.
ton brought against him for the Of
fense of larceny after trust, he hav.
ing teen, as l understand, clerk or
officer of the defendant company
Subsequently an action was brought
Cor less than the jurisdictional
amount hdre, for damages alleged
to have been sustained by him for
a malicious prosecution for forgery
brought in the state court against
The defendant company. Before the
second suit had been brought the de
fendant removed the artion of the
first mentioned, assigned upon the
alleged larceny after trust, TO this
court, and now seeks to enjoin ac
ton brought for the alleged forgery
upon the ground that both prosecu
tions were for one and the same
cause, and that the proceedings re.
moved in the first suit drew to ii
all of the alleged wrongs connected
with the transaction, many of which
are set up in the second suit brought
in the state court.
"The question is not entirely free
from difficulty. 1t is, of course, the
duty Of the court of'the United States
TO protect citizens of other staes who
invoke it's jurisdiction, granted by
the constitution, on the ground of
diversity of citizenship, and it has
been held in more than one case
that this court can avail itself of the
remedy of Injunction to stay pro-
eeedings in the state court when ii
is obviously intended to avoid the
effect of the removal statutes, and
to defeatt citizen of another state
OF his right to have his case tried
in the circuit court of the United
States. 1t is, however, true that
remedy should only be utilized by the
court in cases of great clearness
where it is Obvious that there is an
attempt to defeat the constitutional
jurisdiction dependant upon such re
moval All the trend and current
of authority of the United States
courts is against interference by
such courts with the proceedings in
the state courts.
"Now the test here is this, do the
several prosecutions for which dam
ages are claimed necessarially con-
stitute one and the same cause OF
action? It may be for the same gen.
eral offense, the agent for the tele
graph company may have been de-
4aulter, he may have been an embeZ
zler, hut are the charges which are
presented by the grand jury at the
essentially the same? Could they be
consolidated properly in this court?
Would an acquittal on one charge
Justify the defense of former jeopar'
6y; would the conviction on one
charge justify the defense of for
mer conviction? This would have to
be made plainly and uncontrovert'
IDLY to appear before the court would
be justified in reaching that conclu
sion.
"Now the offense of larceny afteI
trust. Is In it's essentials, entirely
distinct from the offense of forgery
It's punishment is different. BY the
state statute larceny after trust, the
minimum penalty Is one year in the
penitentiary; in the case of forgery
the minimum penalty is two years II
the penitentiary, and the maximum
penalty believe in either case II
Eve years in the penitentiary. LARGE
ny after trust may exist withou
forgery, and forgery may exist with
ont larceny after trust That seems