Wheeling majority. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1907-192?, 1914-05-14

y
ed in this cause, which motion being
in writing is ordered filed, which is
accordingly done. And thereupon the
court overru1ed said motion to dismiss
said restraining order heretofore
granted plaintiff in said cause, and
thereupon the said defendants asked
leave. to file their joint answer to the
Bill of Complaint in said cause with
the sundry affdavits in said answer
mentioned as well also, as the affida-
Wits of Joe Timilavi, William Hargast,
Harry T. Peavee, F. P, HannaWay Joe
July No. 2, Walter Brown No 3 Rich.
ard Webb No. 2, Van Bitner and Rich.
ard Webb no. 3, and asked permission
to file the same, which leave is granted
and said joint answer and all Of eoid
afiidavits are filed accordine1v ~
which answer the plaintiff renlied .o "
orally rendering its replication for 81
ing leave for which is granted and sais
r r. Enled accordingly; and
.nereupon issue is Joined, and there.
upon tne cause was submitted to The
court without argument upon the no.
pers hereinbefore filed in said canso
ana by agreement of counsel. leave 10
granted to counsel for PLAINTIFF to fi1 10
.Drlef with the court in said canse
witnln fifteen days from the date ~
his order, and the counsel for 49, -
ants to file briefs herein with tho oo,,rt
within twenty days from the date
hereof. uaIe
me court being of the opinion tn
continue said restraining order, hero,
sofore granted in this cause. doth or.
der that the same be continued with
[uli force and effect until the f1,rthar
order of this court" = SAie1
Inc above order was agreed to
West Virginia Pittsbureh Cal ~
By J. F. Cree, Solicitor
Van Bitner, James Oates Rohor+
Wqpd, Defendants.
= By A. M. Belcher.
John y. Palmer, Erskine, Palmer 3
our1, ana 5. B. Montgomery, Solicitors
or Defendants above named.
which order shown to, and read nv
said Judge Dayton, and after he had
sead the said agreed order, he en-
lorsed the same for entry as follows.
Order" Enter" October %. 1872
Aston G. Dayton, Judge"
That after said order had been on.
1orsed for entry, the same was Lodged
With the Clerk for recordation in f6e
proper records of said court. and soon
liter said order was so lodged viii
said Clerk, the defendants counsaI ~
5ether with the attorney Representing
he complainant, started to leave tbe
Judges private office wherein said or
ler mad been prepared, but the. said
'udge cahed the compliments attor-
icy IN private conference; that after.
ne SAID Judge had had such private
onference with said attorney. said al
orney for the complainant, j. F. Cree
1otified counsel for the defendants
hat Judge Dayton had refused the
sad order; that thereupon counsel for
ne defendants returned to the Judges
room and were told by said Judge that
ne would not enter said order, that he
I'D not allow the cause to be submit
ed IN the manner in which it was
ubmitted, and instead of entering said
agreed order which had been endorsed
Oy him as Jduge over the objection of
he defendants counsel, he, himself
prepared an order and had the same
that said restraining order so
awarded by him on the said 29th dav
of September, 1913, a copy of which
order is herewith filed as part hereof.
was continued in full force and effect:
hat In violation of the rule recurring
hearing of restraining orders with
n ten days, said restraining order was
continued in full force and effect until
he End day of December, 1913, at
which time the said Judge awarded
he complainant preliminary iniunc-
ion, which preliminary Injunction so
awarded has been continued in full
orce and effect to the present time:
hat said preliminary Injunction pre-
tents the defendants named therein
rom exercising lawful and legal rights
lnder the laws of the United States
md theF State OF. West Virginia, as
Will appear from a copy of the same
lied herewith as Exhibit B. and ask
ID to be read as part hereof; that num-
srous defendants have been arrested
or alleged contempt Of said injunc-
ion and brought before said Dayton,
which proceedings have been based
lpon mere afidavits filed by the
gents and servants Of said company,
alleging violation of said Injunction
lpon the part Of the defendants, and
which affidavits do not in any parti- |
;ular specify or set out, in what way
n manner said Injunction has been
upon the part of those whom |
aid company, through its said SER
rants and agents have charged with
he violation of same; that said Judge
las held in said contempt proceedings
hat it is not necessary for the defend
lnts to have notice touching the man
Ter in which said alleged violation of |
laid injunction were committed; that
n said proceedings he has demo unced
he defendants, telling them before
rial that they belong to criminal
and that because of such
act it is not necessary to show any
vet done. by the defendants in further
ance of such conspiracy; that in one
Instance he imposed Jail sentence of
sixty days upon Lewis Schwartz, a
who was conducting store
- o1oea RI VII,