Imprisonment for Contempt; Release Ordered
KEELY NOT IN CONTEMPT THE ORDER COMMITTING HIM REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
PHILADELPHIA, Jan, 28.—The Supreme Court to-day handed down an opinion in which it reversed the order made by Judge Finletter committing Inventor John W. Keely to prison for contempt, and ordered his discharge. Chief-Justice Paxson delivered the opinion of the court, and by it shows that the order commanding Keely to exhibit, explain, and operate his motor was premature, and that being the case the court below had no right to enforce the order by attachment committing the defendant to jail for contempt. Judge Mitchell delivered a concurring opinion, in which he arrives at the same conclusion, but by another mode of reasoning. The opinion delivered by the Chef-Justice, after quoting the order of commitment, says:
“At the time this order was made the cause was not at issue, no answer had been filed, and of course there was no examiner or master. At this stage no legal testimony could have been taken. The plaintiff had obtained his special injunction, which was duly continued within five days. There was then no further step which the plaintiff could properly take except to put the case at issue. After issue joined an examiner could have been appointed and the proofs taken in an orderly manner. Instead of so proceeding a commission of experts was appointed to examine the defendant’s machine, and the order of April 7 was made by which the defendant, in advance of any issue, was not only required to exhibit his machine but also to operate it and explain the mode of its construction and operation. Although it clearly appeared that it would require considerable expense to clean the machine put it together, and operate it, the defendant appears to have been willing to exhibit it, and In point of fact did so. That he might have been compelled to do so at a proper stage of the cause is conceded; but to make an order not only to exhibit it but to operate it, the practical effect of which was to wring from him his defense in advance of any issue joined was an inprovident and excessive exercise of chancery powers.”
Published: January 29, 1889
Copyright © The New York Times
See Also