Year: 1874

THE BUTCHERS TRIUMPHANT.


The case of Hoffman VS.. the Washington
Market Company, involving the right to de-
mand bonus upon the stalls in the Centre mar
ket, was decided yesterday. After argument
by Mr.. Merrick for the butchers, and Mr..
Chandler for the Market Company, Judge
Wylie said that this was not the court Of last
resort, for an appeal lies in the general term,
and from there it could be taken still higher.
1t might have been expected, with the notice
the company had, that they would have filed
an answer. They had filed no answer, but in
stead an affidavit; but the case was before the
court, and fairly, for the bill is fair one.
The defendant objects to the jurisdiction of the
court, regarding the case as one in which the
court has no more right to interfere than in an
ordinary case of landlord and tenant, but this
was not such a case. The right TO establish
markets is 8 sovereign right belonging TO the
Government itself, and, with great respect for
the Government, he would say 1t had parted
with its prerogatiye in this case. Congress
was not, however, unmindful of its duty as TO
the public, and in passing this law comforting
O valuable privilege on the company they had
no idea of allowing the public to be plucked.


This act provides that the stalls shall be put
up at auction and sold or leased for term Of
years. If the law stopped these q purchaser





But the law goes further and enacts that such
purchasers shall have the stalls so long as they
shall occupy the same in their business and pay
the rent. The lessee in the first section Is alb
solutely bound to pay the rent or bonus, and
be took It with view of paying rent, but not
bonus, after the expiration of the term. This
provision was q trust for the public, and for
the benefit of the public. This matter Is. not
between the company and the dealers, but be-
ha nounnapv oDd the nuhlic What
would be the result If this company had and
exercised the right TO put on bonuses every
yeari Every man buying piece Of beet would
have to pay an extra cent per pound, and five
cents extra on butter and other commodities.
Congress took this view Of the subject, and
the public owe them debt Of gratitude, for
they intended to protect the public. The COM
pany attempted to accomplish by private
agreement, in the form Of permit, what the
law did not warrant them doing, and it was an
illegal arrangement. Twice the bill Of the
company, which would have left the public at
the mercy Of the company, passed the House
of Representatives, and twice were the objec-
tionable features stricken out in the Senate.
The court will not allow q violation Of the
charter by issuing "permit."


The company, after selling the stalls, say,
"You shall not take possession of your prop
erty unless you enter into an agreement with
us to sacrifice the public interest" The plain
tiff in this case finds himself an occupant of q
stall in June, and the company gave notice
that they intended to sen. But not according
TO the charter was this sale to be, for they in
tended to sell the choice. Il was not this kind
of auction that the law contemplated. Even
If they had the right to hold the second auc-
ton, they had no right TO sell the choice OF
stalls, for the occupants at the previous sale
had q title in them. It was an unfortunate
circumstance for the public that this misunder-
standing had taken place. The object Of the
corporation. lie to make money, and when q
company have grant bordering on sovereignty
itself it must be carefully watched, The stall
of complainant in this case was about to be put
up for sale, and his goodwill in 1t about to be
sacrificed. The case presented well-settled
ground for equity Jurisdiction, and he would
| order the injunction. rr.a E.F- --7 20 (. q.
The butchers VIII at once return TO their old
stands without bonus, and the business Of the
1 market will 70 on as usuah 3 co ~.


The Market Company will, it Is understood
take an appeal. ...4.