The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1919-01-24
IN LEGAL Battle With NILES TOOL WORKS IS TOLD BY
W. B. RUBIN, INTL M0LDERS UNION ATTORNEY.

| eu ali OF the common STOCK IN the
Niles Tool Works; that it owned the
great majority of the preferred stock;
that the president and vice president
of the two corporations were the same
individual, and that the majority of
the directors of the Niles Tool Works
were also the directors of the Niles
Bement Pond Company; that the law
yers of the two corporations were the
same; that the lawyers who had been
in charge of the strike on behalf of
the Niles Tool Works had abandoned"
the Niles Tool Works to its fate as
defendants, and had become the attor-
neys for the Niles -Bement Pond Com
pany, the plaintiff, in order to give
the court jurisdiction; in fact, had
acted as attorneys for both sides; that
ninety-five per cent of the products
| of the Niles Tool Works was under
the direct control of the Niles -Bement
Pond Company; that the remaining
| five per cent was left to the Niles
Tool Works to contract for local pro-
duction, but that the Niles Bement
Pond Company had complete control
of said ninety-five per cent of the
production as we'll as preference; and
that the Niles Tool Company was but
a subsidiary company of the Niles-Be-
ment Pond Company,-t Niles Be-
ment Pond Company being the con-
tracing party with the government,
for which it charged ten per cent of
the total contract price, turning over
the work to the Niles Tool Works.
In other words, if the Niles Tool
Works had contracted directly with
the government, the government might
have had its work done at ten per
cent less,-a clever, sharp business
scheme
Now, the evidence failed to show
that the Niles Tool Works had re-
fused to join as plaintiff, "a little
flaw in the chain. Had the Niles Tool
Works joined as party plaintiff, the
action would have gone down for the
reason that the Niles Tool Company
was an Ohio corporation, and the fed
eral court thus would have been with
out jurisdiction; so they simply shift
ed the tail of the snake to the defend
ant and the head of the snake to the
plaintiff to give the court jurisdic-
ton.
The federal Judge granted the in
junction, Notwithstanding that show
ing. Counsel for the defense took the
matter up on appeal. The evidence
showed collusion of the worst order
a damned "frame-up" for acquiring
legal jurisdiction So patent was it
that the Circuit Court of Appeals
could not stand for the camouflage
and perjury. The court, therefore,
dismissed the complaint and injunc-
tion for want of jurisdiction, saying
in part:
Naturally and normally, the two
corporations would stand together in
every way so far as their interests
in this suit are concerned. That they
do so stand together is affirmatively
shown. The defendant company, en-
ployed and paid the guards and watch
men, and the representatives of the
4 +1ro ooY,,,av,;ae oo,oe,,1+a5 +ooa+bo,. No
garding the strike, how to manage il
and how to get men into the foundry
The defendant company seems not tc
have appeared of record in the suit;
! its works-manager testified that he
should say that the counsel present
at the trial (employed by plaintiff)
represented both plaintiff and defend.
ant company presumably in refer.
ence to the conduct of the strike)
the attorneys named in regard tc
matters connected with this strike,
and that one of them represented the
defendant company when one of The
strikers was arrested, apparently dur
ing the strike now in question.
"The bill states no case for reliet
against the defendant company anc
no such relief is asked, unless by the
general prayer that the court grant
plaintiff any and all other equitable
relief which in equity and good con
science it is entitled to receive In
deed, plaintiffs control of the defend
ant company, and the complete har
mony between them, renders RELIEF a.
the hands of the court as against de
fendant company entirely unneces
sary. 1t is equally clear that the IN
terests of the defendant company ant
those of the individual defendants ar,
wholly adverse to eachother,"
"The instant case is such as to maxi
: its failure for lack of jurisdiction un
fortunate;; but the conclusion tha