YOUNG. ?u.& ? ?f il2 edginal oomp]z&mnt, it would seem necemarily to re- ? that the charge of m unlawful discrimination is x?ot proved. In abort, there was no intmt on the part of the railway eom- l?ni?'? to do a wrongful ae?, and the act itseft did not work any sul?ma?ial injury to ? rights of the complainant. We have not attempted ?o review in detail the great o/ tselSmo_?, &mottoting to twe enormous printed volumes. It is enougk to s&y that a?, ev-min,,tion of it clearly shows auffaei?t ?emsons for the findings of fact made by the Circuit Court. In ehort, the findings of the Circuit Court were w&rranted by the te?k?ony, and thoeo findings make it clear that there �was no unlawful discH?i?i?on. The ? of the Circuit Court is MR. J?YlC? Mooo� did not hear the argument nor take part in th? d?ision of this c?e. Ez ? YOUNG. F?'FI'?ION FOR ? OF HABEAS, CORPU9 AND CERTIORARI. No. 10, Ovi?i?l. ? D?-.?mber 2, a, 1907.--l?hied M?-eh 23, 19C8. Whi]e this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not, it must take juriz- dietion if it should. It c?nnot, as the legislature may, Avoid meeting a measure because it desires so to do. In this es? a m?it Oy & stockholder ag, sim? a eorporatic? to m join the dirco- tots and officers from complying with the provisions of a state statute, alleged to be unom?titutionai, wa? prop?ly brought within Equity Rule 94 of tl? court. An orc{? of the Ci?ult Court committing one for contemot for violatimm of a deere ?terecl in a suit o? which it did not have {urisdiation is miniawful; sad, in such e?e, upon proper application, thk court will dbshar? ths psmm ?o held.
�
