238 PBDPEAL BEI'OBTEB. �or some one acting for it, a vacillation between a direction to obey the injunction and one to disoboy it outright ; but the general resuit was to charge the rate fixed by the injunction, but to increase it by adding charges for f erriage over the river at Memphis, and bridge toUs over the river at Little Eock, ■which extra charges had never before been made separately to the plainti£f or other shippers, but were included in the tariii rates. �■F. E. Whitfieid, T. B. Turley, and Qeo. GiWiam, for rela- tors. _ �B. G. Brown, R. J. Morgan, ana W. G. Weatherford, for respondents. �HaMMOND, D. J., (prally.) There is no doubt whatever on the proof that this injunction has been violated, and that de- liberately, either because it was supposed this court had no jurisdiction, which had beei: ruled against the defendant cor- poration, or because it ,was supposed that it could be circum- vented by offering a pretest for the misconstruction of its plain language. Advice of counsel is no excuse, and, unfor- fortunately, we have not a hold now on the individuals who instigated the violation, nor any definite proof as to the par- ticular persons responsible for the orders and telegrams un- der the authority of which the breaches were committed by the subordinate agents of the company. I appreciate the position these agents oqcupy, and the dilemma in which they were placed. On the one hand they had the unambiguous and plain command of this court, and on the other that of their superiorsj to whom, generally, obedience is a duty, and, perhaps, always ;a necessity, when considered in relation to the :probable lossiof their employment, for disobedience. Notwithstanding this, there can be no question that at ail haz- ards of siach losses it was their duty to obey the injunction. I-.shauld be satisfied with - a reprimand, and the penalty of CQsts, if it did not appear in the evidence that these young mgn, in the language of tho telegrams and affidavits, "were not afraid" to ;take. the regponsibility" of violating this in- junction, and, but f or, their diaobedience of it, ita violation by the other0 woiild have been impossible. The route-agent ��� �
