APPELLATE FORM XIV.-NOTICE AND PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER IN BANKRUPTCY. [Re Abbey Press, 134 Fed. 51.] [Title in Circuit Court of Appeals.] SIRS: Please take notice that on the 3d day of February, 1904, I shall present to this Court and file with the Clerk thereof, the petition of J. Campbell Thompson herein, for review by this Court of a certain order of the Hon. George C. Holt, one of the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed and entered with the Clerk of said Court on the 27th day of January, 1904, and confirming certain rulings and findings of the Hon. Macgrane Coxe, one of the Referees herein, and for review of the said findings and rulings of the said Referee, and at the same time or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, a motion will be made before said Court for a review of said order and of the said findings of the said Referee, and for such other and further relief in the premises as may be just. To the Honorable WILLIAM J. WALLACE, E. HENRY LACOMBE, WILLIAM K. I.-Heretofore under the order of the Honorable Thomas Alexander, Special Commissioner of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and upon the order of the Honorable George C. Holt, one of the Judges of said Court, upon motion of Louis H. Moos, Esq., attorney for Hugh A. Bayne, Esq., the Receiver of the assets of the said bankrupt, The Abbey Press, in said District Court, your petitioner was on May 27, 1903, exhaustively examined by John T. Foley, Esq., of counsel for said Receiver and for certain creditors herein, who was then assisted by said Moos, concerning the acts, conduct and property of said bankrupt, and your petitioner then fully and fairly answered all questions then and there put to him and stated all knowledge which he possessed concerning the acts, conduct and property of said bankrupt. II. Subsequently thereto, and on or about December 21, 1903, your petitioner received a certain paper, which purported to be a subpoena purporting to be signed by the Clerk of said District Court, but which was not under the seal of said Court and which did not purport to be issued in pursuance of any order of said Court, nor of any judge thereof nor of any referee in bankruptcy. Said paper purported to order your petitioner to attend before the Honorable Macgrane Coxe, the Referee in Bankruptcy, on December 22, 1903, to testify in the above entitled proceedings on the part of the trustee of the assets of the said bankrupt, and to bring with him certain papers therein specified. Your petitioner attended at the office of said Referee on said date, but said Referee was then absent from his said office. Your petitioner thereupon left said papers with said Referee for inspection, and stated to the attorney for said trustee that he did not recognize any rights on the part of said trustee to compel your petitioner to attend and give evidence before said Referee. Subsequently, on December 28, 1903, your petitioner attended before said Referee and specifically objected to the examination of your petitioner on the following grounds as well as other grounds: (1) that your petitioner could not be lawfully examined except in pursuance of an order of this Court; (2) that no such order had been made; (3) that the said Referee had no power to make such an order; (4) that, inasmuch as your petitioner had once been examined concerning the acts, conduct and property of said bankrupt, no further examination of your petitioner could lawfully be made; (5) that if there were jurisdiction in the Court to order a second examination of your petitioner such an order could not be made except upon a written petition or a written application for the same, to which application your petitioner should be allowed an opportunity to answer and offer evidence, which evidence your petitioner then requested leave to offer. No evidence was offered in support of the application for said second examination. The said Honorable Referee thereupon overruled your petitioner's objections, refused to permit your petitioner to offer evidence in opposition to the application for said examination and orally directed your petitioner to be sworn and to submit to a second examination, although no written application for the same was made or filed. Subsequently thereto and after a petition by your petitioner herein was duly made to the Honorable the Judges of said District Court, and to said Referee, said Referee certified to said Court the objections of your petitioner made at said examination and the rulings of him, the said Referee, and his directions thereon as aforesaid. And a motion having been duly made by your petitioner to review said findings and the said rulings of the said Referee, said motion duly came on to be heard before the Honorable George C. Holt, one of the Judges of said District Court. Said motion was on or about January 19, 1904, denied by said Judge and the findings of the said Referee were confirmed by said Judge, and by an order duly entered on the 27th day of January, 1904. III. Your petitioner respectfully submits that the said directions and findings of the said Referee and the said order of said Judge were and each of them was erroneous. Wherefore, your petitioner prays that the said directions and findings of the said Referee and the confirmation thereof of the said order by the said Honorable Judge of said District Court be reviewed by this Court and that your petitioner may be granted such other and further relief in the premises as may to this Court seem just, and your petitioner will ever pray, &c. ROGER FOSTER, 35 Wall Street, New York. [Affidavit.] APPELLATE FORM XV.-PETITION OR REVIEW OF ORDER OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. [Order set aside, 273 Fed. 478.] To the Honorable Judges of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Your petitioner, Standard Oil Company of New York, respectfully represents: I. That your petitioner is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of business at No. 26 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan, City, County and State of New York, within the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. II. That heretofore and on or about the 29th day of June, 1918, the Federal Trade Commission, the Respondent herein, at its Docket No. 134, filed and issued its complaint against your petitioner, alleging that petitioner was doing certain acts in the conduct of its business alleged to be unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce, in violation of the provisions of Section 5 (five) of an Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An Act to create the Federal Trade Commission, define its powers and duties and for other purposes," and also in violation of Section 2 (two) of an Act of Congress approved October 15, 1914, entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies and for other purposes,'' usually known as the Clayton Act. III. That thereafter petitioner filed its answer to said complaint, and after hearings had, on or about the 27th day of April, 1920, said respondent made its report, findings and conclusions, and directed this petitioner for ever to cease and desist from certain acts and to do certain things, which order is as follows: [Here order of commissioner was inserted.] IV. That petitioner, being aggrieved by the making of said report, findings and conclusions and by the issuance of said order, desires to obtain a review thereof by this Honorable Court. WHEREFORE your petitioner prays this Honorable Court to review said order, report, findings and conclusions and reverse and set aside the same. And your petitioner will ever pray. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK. APPELLATE FORM XVI.-ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SERVE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. [Simons v. Cromwell, 262 Fed. 680. Judgment reversed.] [Title.] This cause having duly come on for trial at common law, and the Court having directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff having taken a number of exceptions in the course of a trial including an exception to such direction, and the plaintiff wishing to obtain a bill of exceptions and to sue out a writ of error to the judgment which will be entered upon said verdict; and the plaintiff having in open court in the presence of the trial counsel for both defendants moved for the relief granted in this order, on motion of Roger Foster, plaintiff's attorney, it is hereby ORDERED that the time of the plaintiff to prepare, serve, settle and file a bill of exceptions herein and her time to have the same sealed and filed and signed be and the same is hereby extended for ninety days from January 9th, 1919, and that the present term of this Court be and the same hereby is extended for said purpose until the expiration of said ninety days. Enter. AUGUSTUS N. HAND, United States District Judge. APPELLATE FORM XVII.-BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. [Copied from Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil Cloth Co., 112 U. S. 294.] [District] Court of the United States, District of New Jersey. AUGUST HEIDRITTER V8. THE ELIZABETH OIL CLOTH COMPANY. In Ejectment. Be it remembered that afterward, to wit, on the fifth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty, at a stated term of the said court begun and holding in Trenton in and for the District of New Jersey, before his Honor, John T. Nixon, District Judge, the issue joined in the above stated cause between the said parties (pro ut the pleadings) came on to be tried before the said judge without the intervention of a jury, the parties aforesaid by their counsel having, according to the statute in such case made and provided, waived a jury; the plaintiff being represented by Edward A. Day, Esquire, his attorney, and William C. Corbin, Esquire, of counsel; and the defendant by William R. Wilson, Esquire, its attorney, and Benjamin Williamson, J. Tredwell Richards, and Alfred S. Brown, of counsel; and upon the trial of that issue the attorneys of the said August Heidritter, plaintiff, to maintain and prove the said issue on his part (it first having been admitted by the counsel for the said defendant that the erection of the building upon the premises in controversy, and for the erection of which the mechanic's lienors mentioned in plaintiff's bill of particulars supplied materials, was commenced June 25th, 1872) offered in evidence the following deeds and records, viz.: An exemplified copy of the following deed, viz.: Edward G. Brown and wife to Charles L. Sicher, war. deed, dated August 20, 1872; received August 20, 1872; in Book 73 of Deeds for Union Co., pp. 10, etc., conveys premises in controversy. An exemplified copy of the judgment roll in the following cases, viz.: In the office of the clerk of the County of Union; August Heidritter v. Charles L. Sicher, builder and owner; lien claim and judgment; (pro ut the same.) An exemplified copy of the judgment roll in the following case, viz.: In the office of the clerk of the County of Union; Ferdinand Blancke and others, partners, etc., as Ferdinand Blancke v. Charles L. Sicher, builder and owner; lien, claim, and judgment; (pro ut the same.) An exemplified copy of the following deed, viz.: Seth B. Ryder, sheriff, to August Heidritter, deed dated September 24th, 1873; received December 1, 1873; in Book 84 of Deeds for Union Co., p. 582, conveys the premises in controversy under and by virtue of the judgment and executions in the two cases last above named; (pro ut the same.) Also certain other deeds and records by which a four-thirteenths interest |