Seastream v. N.J. Exhibition Co.

• Decision Date: 14 February 1905
• Citation: 59 A. 914,69 N.J.E. 15
• Parties: SEASTREAM et al. v. NEW JERSEY EXHIBITION CO.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

59 A. 914

69 N.J.E. 15

SEASTREAM et al.

v. NEW JERSEY EXHIBITION CO.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Feb. 14, 1905.

Bill by August Seastream and others against the New Jersey Exhibition Company. Heard on an order to show cause why certain persons should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of court.

Frank P. McDermott, specially appointed.

Allen McDermott, for Haagenson, Griffiths, and Davis.

James Benny, for Seastream.

MAGIE, Ch. The bill in this cause was filed by August Seastream and Charles C. Alexander, as complainants for themselves, and other residents of the city of Bayonne, against the New Jersey Exhibition Company, a corporation of this state. Its purpose, as indicated by its prayer, was, among other things, to obtain an injunction restraining the company from permitting the playing of baseball or other sports upon grounds occupied by it in Bayonne, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.

The bill, when filed, was presented to the Hon. Henry C. Pitney, one of the vice chancellors, under the provisions of rule 204a. and application was made thereon for an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order. An order to show cause, including a temporary restraining order, was advised by him, and signed by me upon his advice. The order to show cause was returnable al one of the chancery chambers, and was brought to hearing before Vice Chancellor Pitney, sitting for me in my absence. It was supported upon the affidavits appended to the bill, and other affidavits taken and served according to the practice of the court, and was objected to by the defendant upon affidavits presented by its counsel, taken and served in accordance with the practice. Among the affidavits presented on behalf of the defendant company was one made by the complainant August Seastream. For present purposes it is sufficient to say that the sworn statements contained in the last-named affidavit were absolutely inconsistent with the statements contained in the affidavit of the same person which had been annexed to the bill, and upon which the pending order had been made. One or the other of the affidavits was evidently untrue.

Upon the presentation of the latter and contradictory affidavit, the vice chancellor before whom the matter was pending, evidently conceiving that a question arose thereon whether there had not been a violation of the law respecting perjury, requested Hon. John A. Blair, the judge of the court of common pleas, and ex officio judge of the quarter sessions of Hudson county, to investigate. Judge Blair is a master, and a special master, of this court, but the matter was not referred to him to take testimony as such master, or to report thereon to this court if the request was in this respect irregular, the irregularity is of no consequence, for Judge Blair, although fixing times for investigation, and being attended by counsel for that purpose, did not proceed thereon, and mainly because of the absence of August Seastream. But afterward August Seastream did appear before him, and was examined by the judge. His statements were put into the form of an affidavit and sworn to by him before Judge Blair. The wife of August Seastream was also examined, and her affidavit taken by Judge Blair. These affidavits, with others, were presented to Vice Chancellor Pitney, who thereupon advised an order upon August Seastream, Benjamin T. Haagenson, ...