Owen J. Roberts

“ The respondent has representatives in every important capital and city in the world and has reciprocal arrangements for interchange of news with many important agencies in foreign countries; has more than twelve hundred members, each owning or representing a daily newspaper, each supplying respondent, as required by the by-laws, with the news gathered locally by the newspaper he represents; the cost of respondent's transactions, amounting yearly to many millions of dollars, is equitably divided among the members ”

“ In effect it stands alone. Therefore the court would not have been bound to dismiss upon a motion based solely on alleged insufficient pleading of the amount in controversy; though it might, of its own motion, have entered upon an inquiry to ascertain whether the cause was one over which it had jurisdiction. [5] But where the allegations as to the amount in controversy are challenged by the defendant in an appropriate manner, the plaintiff must support them by competent proof. [6] The petitioner's motion was an appropriate method of challenging the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint. ”

“ The petitioner, though repeatedly requested to desist from the practice, has refused so to do, although neither the association nor any member has granted permission to make use of the news gathered by them; and the continuance by the petitioner of its practice will increasingly cause irreparable injury and damage to the respondent because the effort and expenditures to gather and obtain news will be rendered largely without reward or value so far as concerns the territory served by petitioner's station. ”

“ The association cannot therefore lose the $8,000 in question. If the three newspapers in the affected territory cease to pay the sum, they will save it, not lose it, and, as to any other damage they may suffer from petitioner's competition, the affiant is silent. ”

“ Bucyrus Co. v. McArthur (D.C.) 219 F. 266.↑ Susquehanna & W.V.R. & Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 20 L.Ed. 179; Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co. (C.C.) 179 F. 245, affirmed 218 U.S. 357, 31 S.Ct. 81, 54 L.Ed. 1069.↑ Act of March 3, 1875, § 5, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, 472, Jud.Code, § 37, 28 U.S.C. § 80 (28 U.S.C.A. § 80) ”