20 FEDERAL REPORTER.
of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the fact, and that in my judg-
ment it is not proven that the conversation ever occurred.
There must be a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, and
[ for costs for the defendant. `
WELLS, Frisco & Co. v. Onncon Br. & Nav. Co.
(Oircuit Court, D. Oregon. January 25, 1884.)
1. Exmmss Facrnrrrns.
Whether an express company doing business over a line of railway or steam-
boats is entitled to the services of the pursers and conductors thereon, as its
messengers, depends on circumstances; but when one express company doing ‘
business over any such line of transportation is allowed such service, the same
thereby becomes an express facility, as to all other express companies doing
business thereon, and cannot lawfully be withheld from them.
2. Imunorron ro BE OBEYED.
When a party to an injunctiondoubts its extent or significance, he ought not
to disobey or disregard it, with a view of testing it in this particular, but he
should apply to the court for a modification or construction of it.
3. Pusrsnimiwr ron Ccurnnrr.
In a. proceeding for contempt between the parties to a suit for disobedience
to an injunction, causing a pecuniary loss or injury to the party instituting the
proceeding, the court, in imposing punishment upon the wrong-doer, may do
so for the benefit of the party injured. ’
Proceeding for Contempt in the Violation of an Injunction.
M. W. Fcchheimer, for plaintiff. ‘
_ Rufus Mallory and Byron O'. Bellinger, for defendant.
DEADY, J. On December 11, 1882, plaintiff commenced a suit in
this court to compel the defendant to allow and furnish it express
facilities on its lines of transportation; and on March 19th, after a
· hearing on the bill, an injunction was allowed requiring thedefends
ant to furnish the plaintiff such facilities on and over its lines of rail-
way and steam navigation as it then was and had been doing before
the commencement of the suit and upon the same terms. On No-
vember 20, 1883, the plaintiff filed a petition in the cause, verified
by the oath of its superintendent, Mr. Dudley Evans, asking that the
manager of the defendant, Mr. C. H. Prescott, and certain of its
pursers and conductors, be ordered to show cause why they should
not be punished as for contempt, for not obeying said injunction as
therein alleged. The petition and affidavits in support of it show
that at and before the allowance of said injunction and since, the de-
fendant was and is the owner and operator of two certain steam-
boats, then and now plying on the Columbia river, between Portland
and Astoria and way pc1·ts, and also a certain steam—sbip plying be-
tween Portland and San Francisco, as well as the lessee and opera-
tor of a certain narrow gauge railway running from White Station to