Ex parte Haggerty

• Decision Date: 06 August 1902
• Citation: Ex parte Haggerty, 124 F. 441 (4th Cir. 1902)
• Parties: Ex parte HAGGERTY et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

124 F. 441

Ex parte HAGGERTY et al.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. West Virginia.

August 6, 1902

John J Coniff and A. G. Fiekeison, for petitioners.

A. B Fleming, J. J. Davis, J. W. Davis, and Reese Blizzard, for respondents.

GOFF Circuit Judge.

On the petition of Thomas Haggerty, George Baron, and Andrew Raskawee, of the state of Pennsylvania, William Morgan, of the state of Ohio, William Blakely, of the state of Indiana and Peter Wilson, of the state of Illinois, alleging that they were illegally restrained of their liberty by C. D Elliott and J. W. Dudley, I directed that the writ of habeas corpus issue, returnable before me on the 5th day of August, 1902.On that day due return was made by said parties, and the petitioners were produced before me.By the return it appears that C. D. Elliott is the United States marshal for the Northern District of West Virginia, and that J. W. Dudley is the sheriff of Wood county, W. Va., and as such the jailer of that county, and that they as such officials have the custody of and detain the said petitioners by virtue of a judgment of conviction against each of them, rendered by the Hon. John J. Jackson, on the 24th day of July, 1902, he then, as District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, holding the Circuit Court for that district, for a contempt of the orders of that court by them and each of them theretofore committed.Such orders had been entered by that court in the equity suit of the Guaranty Trust Company of New York filed against Thomas Haggerty and others, for the purpose of restraining such defendants from entering upon and trespassing upon the lands and property of the Clarksburg Fuel Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of West Virginia, and doing business in that state; also to restrain them from going on the said company's tipples, tracks, and other property for the purpose of unlawfully preventing that company's employes remaining in its employment; also restraining them from assembling, congregating, or camping at or near any of the mines or places of business of that company, or the roads traveled by its employes in going to and from their work, for the purpose of preventing, by intimidation, such employes from continuing in said employment; also restraining them from unlawfully interfacing with the management of that company's business, and from assembling together, and marching at or near the mines of said company, with a view of preventing such employes from working.

It appears from the record that on the filing of said billthe court issued the injunction as prayed for, and that it was duly served on the defendants, the petitioners mentioned.Afterwards the petitioners were arrested, charged with violating the terms of the injunction, and were, after due investigation of said charges by the court, found guilty of the willful infraction of the provision of the injunction order, and sentenced for such contempt, the said Haggerty for 90 days' confinement, and the others for 60 days each, in the jail of Wood county, W.Va. Petitioners now insist that they should be discharged, for the reason that the court so imprisoning them was without jurisdiction of the cause mentioned, and that, therefor, its injunction orders and subsequent judgments were and now are null and void.If that contention be sustained, then the petitioners are improperly and unlawfully deprived of their liberty, and should be discharged.

I am not hearing the case of Guaranty Trust Co. v. Haggerty et al. on appeal, nor am I passing upon the weight of the evidence upon which judgments of conviction were rendered, nor any of the questions connected with the trials or the rules for contempt.Such matters can only be considered by an appellate court, and the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error or appeal.I am therefore to consider the question of jurisdiction alone.

It appears from the bill that the Clarksburg Fuel Company, on the 26th of September, 1901, executed a mortgage on all of its property to the Guaranty Trust Company of New York, to secure the payment of $2,500,000, of which sum $1,450,000 is still due and payable.It also appears that by the terms of the mortgage the whole of such indebtedness will become due and payable if default be made in the payment of the semiannual interest due on the 1st days of April and October of each year; that such trust company is the trustee named in the mortgage, and that it has loaned the Clarksburg Fuel Company $950,000, to secure the payment of which such company has deposited with the trust company 2,000 of the bonds of the fuel company of the aggregate value of $2,000,000.It is alleged in the bill that the Clarksburg Fuel Company will not be able to pay, from its earnings or otherwise, the interest accruing on its bonds, except by means of the income it may derive from the operations of its several coal mining plants and that is such plants be closed or interfered with, or injured or destroyed, such interest cannot be paid, nor can the principal of said bonds be discharged.It is also alleged that the petitioners, defendants in said suit, have come among the employes of said company for the purpose of endeavoring to create dissatisfaction among them and to induce them to engage in the 'strike' prevailing among the coal miners of the country, especially in the states of Pennsylvania and West Virginia; that in furtherance of that object they have had a large number of persons to march in procession near the mines of the Clarksburg Fuel Company; that they have held or addressed meetings, making inflammatory speeches intended to excite dislike and hatred of all persons owning and operating coal mines, especially of the officers and managers of the Clarksburg Fuel Company; that they have caused strikers and others to march in large numbers along the county roads, by the residences of the miners working in the mines of that company, and by and along the paths they travel in going to and from work, and have threatened them, intimidated them, and fired shots from guns and pistols, until said employes have become frightened and...