The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1914-11-18
Fleming At p. SIS the supreme court

Fleming at p. SIS the supreme court
OF appeals said:
"Jurisdiction over criminal cases is
conferred upon courts specially
created to hear them; and with few
exceptions, 1t is beyond the power Of
equity to control, or In any manner
interfere with. such proceedings by
Injunction. High on Injunctions,
sec. 6S, and cases cited in Note S. 1t
appears, however, that II a statute
concerning which an arrest or Grim
inal prosecution is threatened af-
fects civil property and its enjoy
ment, In protecting the property right
equity may properly enjoin the Grim
inal prosecution, but in such cases
It's interference is founded solely up
on the ground of injury to property
and the necessity Of preserving prop
erty rights. Also where q suit is al
ready pending in equity, and of test
ing the same right as that In issue
| in, the equitable action; in such case
court Of equity may impose condi-
tons on q sutton seeking its aid; and
hence, in order to protect its prior
jurisdiction, may compel him to
abandon the criminal prosecution I'M
til final determination OF the whole
matter in equity"
The plaintiffs insist that the case OF
Coal & Coke Ry. Co. v. Conley and
Avis, 81 W. Va, 1873, is a precedent
for the equitable procedure here at
tempted. The railway company ig-
nored, the 1.-TWO Cent Rate Act
passed by the legislature February
90, 1907, and later brought suit In
equity to enjoin and restrain William
G. eConley, then attorney general of
the state, and S. B. Avis, then pros
ecuting attorney Of Kanawha county,
from enforcing the penal provisions
Of said act against the company, The
supreme court OF appeals upheld
equity jurisdiction in the case and
lperpetuated the Injunction against
the attorney general and the prose-
cutcr Of Kanawha county, on the
ground that although Ene Rate Law
was. sin all respects, valid on its
face" yet in its application to the
plaintiff company It was confiscatory
and void. The injunctiye authority
Of the court was exercised solely for
the protection of property and prop
erty rights. The holding was by no
means based alone upon the uncon-
stitutionality Of the "Rate Act as
applied to the Coal & Coke Railway
Company. The court said:
Syl. 10.-"Unconstitutionality OF
the act is not alone sufficient to con-
fer jurisdiction of such suit or pro-
ceeding in equity. To this there must
be added, for such purpose, some
right or injury, respecting the per-
son or property, not adequately rem
edial by any proceeding at law"
Syl. 11.-"When the two grounds
for relief, just mentioned, exist, the
remedy IN equity is not precluded
though It involves restraint, by in
junction, of a criminal proceeding"
Syl. 4S.-"A statutory passenger
rate, SO low as to forbid the earnings
of reasonable compensation for car
rying passengers, and thus contrib
ute to insufficiency of net income of
the entire traffic of the road to COM
ply with the constitutional guarantee
OF right to a fair return on the in
vestment, is confiscatory in Its oper-
alton and effect upon such road and
void"
Page 15o.-"It need hardly be said
that cases Of this class can never be
invoked as precedents for the enjoin-
ing Of criminal prosecutions general