Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/814

800 FEDERAL REPORTER. �prerenting the complainant from carrying on the express business over said road, and from enjoying the same facilities in the conduct of such business permitted to any other express company, or exercised by the respondent itself, on payment by complainant of reasonable compensation therefor. �On the twelfth of May, 1881, the complainant filed a supplemental bill, by which it is alleged that respondent has engaged in the express business over the said Une of railroad, and established express offices, agents, wagons, horses, etc. ; that the complainant has also continued in such business, It is further averred that since the granting of the injunction herein the respondent has "continuously resorted to unlaw- ful, unjust, arbitrary, and unreasonable expedients to circumvent the force and effect of the orders and decreesof this court on his original bill, as aforesaid, and by imposition upon the plaintiff of unlawful, unreasonable, unjust, and discriminating terms, conditions, and restric- tions not imposed upon itself, engaged in the express business, to destroy the plaintiff 's business and competition on the defendant road, and to accomplish indirectly that exclusion forbidden by the orders of this court in this cause," �The supplemental bill sets forth in detail the terms and restric- tions imposed upon the complainant, the principal of which is that the complainant is charged unjust and extortionate rates for the transportation of express matter. The prayer of the supplemental bill is that the injunction granted under the original bill may be modified so as to restrain the respondent from charging complainant upon its bags, safes, packing trunks, chests, and boxes a higher rate than upon other freights of like weight and bulk, and from charging complainant upon other freights a higher rate than it charges for similar express matter received from or delivered to the custody of the Iron Mountain, etc., Eailroad Company Express, or the Pacific Express Company, Also from discriminating against the complain- ant in favor of itself, or any other express company or person, in the matter of rates, etc. �Upon the presentation of the supplemental bill, the respondent moved to dissolve the injunction allowed upon the original bill, and the complainant moved for a modification of the injunction as prayed in the supplemental bill, and both motions were, by consent, set down for hearing before the circuit judge at St. Louis, on Saturday, the fourth day of June, 1881, and were then fully argued by counsel before him. ��� �