The Wilmington Daily Republican

FIFTH EDITION

MR. FORD NOT GUILTY

Chancellor Wolcott Says He Did Not Violate the Injunction Issued out of Chancery Court.

The decision of Chancellor Wolcott in the injunction suit of the Jessup & Moore Paper Company vs. Ford Morocco Company was delivered this morning and was a clear and concise decree, favoring the co-respondent to the chancery action which has been pending in that court for several months.

The decree will in all probability lead to the condemnation of the famous Silverbrook by the city and the substituting of a sewer to carry the refuse matter from the Ford plant and others which may be located along the banks of the stream to a stream other than the Christiana Creek, or to a point in that creek where it will not interfere with the product of any other Wilmington enterprise.

This is the decision in full. I have determined to decide or dispose of the matter upon the evidence submitted entirely without reference to the legal propositions that were raised at the threshold of the hearing of this rule. My decision will not elaborate the facts. To have prepared an opinion involving a complete review of the testimony would have entailed an amount of labor which I did not care to undergo, in fact, I was not able to do it if I had been so disposed.

On the 24th day of November 1886, an injunction was issued, directed against Peter J. Ford, Thomas Ford and Thomas F. Ryan. Last spring, sometime in April I believe, a rule was laid upon Peter J. Ford to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in consequence of the alleged violation or breach of the injunction issued in 1886—Peter J. Ford being the only survivor of Thomas Ford and Thomas F. Ryan, deceased.

At the hearing of the rule a motion was made to dispose of the same upon the ground that the factory had become the property of, and was operated by, a corporation known as the Ford Morocco Company and was not the property of Peter J. Ford, nor was it under his control. That was the basis of the motion.

At the conclusion of that argument, and before any step was taken, an amended injunction had been discovered among the papers and presented to the court for its consideration in determining that preliminary question.

Now, I do not propose to decide that question one way or the other. I propose to decide this case upon its merits as disclosed by the facts of the testimony. I attempted to so decide it, I should be confronted with this difficulty. The late Chancellor Saulsbury had it in mind that the original injunction was not sufficient to punish Peter J. Ford for contempt, and the very fact that he signed an amended injunction is proof that there was present in his mind a doubt as to the sufficiency of the original injunction, according to the changed conditions—that is, the transfer of the property.

If the amended injunction was necessary in order to punish Peter J. Ford, or the corporation of which he was a member, then there could have been no violation of this amended injunction, because it had been published or made known. He had no knowledge of it, and certainly man cannot be punished for the performance of an act which is prohibited by an order or a decree which has never been published or circulated.

But I do not propose to decide that question. I propose to decide this case entirely upon its merits, and leave that matter untouched or undisturbed. I shall do that very briefly.

There was very strong testimony on the part of the complainant that Peter J. Ford was guilty of a violation of or a breach of this injunction, and if the case had depended upon the testimony of the complainant, he certainly would have been proven guilty.

But Peter J. Ford meets that testimony with evidence quite as strong, if not stronger, that he is not guilty.

I believe that it is conceded on both sides that unless some damage or injury resulted to the complainant because of the discharge of fluid or liquid or any matter from that factory or otherwise, he could not be held liable. Because for an act which can be of no injury to the party invoking the aid of the court in that respect, the defendant cannot be held guilty of contempt of or breach of an injunction against said act.

I think it is conceded on both sides that there must be some damage or injury to the complainant before this extraordinary remedy can be invoked. As I have already said, here is strong testimony on both sides, and in the presence of such a strong conflict of testimony, which is entirely irreconcilable, for it would baffle the ingenuity of the most acute to reconcile the two currents of testimony, which are directly the antipodes of each other how can any mind escape doubt, and a serious and grave doubt, that this defendant is guilty of that order in that injunction.

Assuming, now, that Peter J. Ford though not the owner of this property, can be guilty of contempt, if he had been so proven?

In view of the fact of this grave doubt existing in my mind, it is utterly impossible for me to declare that Peter J. Ford is guilty of contempt.

There is a serious doubt in my mind and that doubt must control, because of the consequences that would follow, and there being such a doubt the defendant in this case is entitled to the benefit of that doubt; and I so decide, and this rule must be discharged.