The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-03-21
THE Art UNION CASE.



PLAINTIFF.
SIXTH
This case was again brought on at 10 AN.
VIM n. Monk again examined-I have seen Mr.. Hazen
at work in the basement in the evening" but not posi-
tive OBJECTED to.)
Cross examined-l am II years old have spoken with
my father about this two three times spoke to
him about it this morning; asked him in what way
should express myself and he said he woad rather not
say anything in the matter except that should tell the
truth; cannot remember the exact conversation pre-
viousy; cannot remember the exact day when the
versaon between Nessrs Cozzsns and Hazen took place
think II before the distribution in 1885, mean the
anticipated time Of distribution was think about
three O'Clock in the day think my father was there
the took place in the old committee ROOM at
the table in the centre Of the saw the book and
the other committee room; my impression IL saw Col
Warner there Hazen was writing, cannot tell what;
Ha1en did not say anything himself Mr. Cosens took the
don't know what made him say eau right suppose
any one in could have heard what said in
the other generally there on Sundays during 1851
and 1852 this transaction took place think in the lat
ter part Of 1850 the beginning Of 1851 the usual
time Of distribution was in December; don't remember
whether not the distribution postponed that year
am disposed to think the In the latter
part Of 1885, believe there has not been distribution
since that time.
Mr.. Jacob Bracelet was called and dsposed-I have
known Mr.. Monk for the last twenty five years. he
once in my employment Ia 1913 1874 and part of 1915
rs steward and head storekseper never heard word
sgainst him, except what have heard in this court.
Cross. examined-l connected with . suit against
Mr.. Henry Johnson did not act for against him;
DON'T know who keeps the United States Hotel; not
in business now; last kept the Union Hotel;
knew why Mr. Monk left the Seventh Ward Bank;
knew before that his testimony had been impeached in
Mr. Harlan Wood examined-I have known Mr.. Monk
for four or Eve years. his character is good far
know.
Cross examinedI have been very intimate with him
for the last two or three years.
Mr. Joseph Delvschio depossd-I have known Mr.. Monk
for the last fifteen years. to the best of my knowledge
bis character is good.
Cross examined have never had difficulty with the
defendants to my knowledge; am . frame maker; l
have been intimate with Mr. Monk don't know why he
left the Seventh Ward Bank; don't know why he left
the employment OF the defendants.
short conversation here ensued between the counsel
and the Judge to the propriety of calling wit
nesses as to character which the Judge thought
necessary.
Jos. Monk was recalled by Mr. Darlington to show for
what cause the receipts given and discussion ensued
between counsel the point but the Judge admitted the
the bills alluded were given from eight in the morning to
six In the evening.
knew him in 1851 clerk to Mr. Whitner where the
Art Union rooms are; was in the habit of going into
these rooms frequently in the morning and evening" and
saw Mr.. Haxen there almost every evening: saw him
engaged in work in the latter part Of 1850 and the begin
Cross examned-I saw him mostly every evening; am
sure have seen him I've evenings out of the six doat
know whether he had been absent part those days and
working up at nights; don't know what hour ne
came in the morning. he working for the Art Union
have seen him writing In their books cannot tell from
what time to what time tins continued.
This closed the for the prosecution Mr. Coe then
applied tor adjournment he not quite prepared
to up and after short conversation it was arrang
ed to again take up the case to morrow at o'clock
SEVENTH DAY.
MARCH 19.-This case was again called up.
Mr.. Fullerton of the counsel for the defendants,
a. II l.
his clients and observed at the outset that the had
assumed greater importance than really belonged to it
but he suspected that something than the present
actual lay behind. With regard to the contract,
the only witness called to prove it Mr.. Monk Who
ought to be remembered, the uncle Of the plaintiff
He swore that he had authority given him by Col. War
ner and when the rested that testimony was
proved that Col. Warner had that authority Ac.
cording to Mr. Monks own showing he emily to get
such assistants as be required and it was implied that
he to have them in the usual way according the
rules of the institution He had not the slightest au
tborty to make contract to limit the number of work
ing hours He did not 90 far to say that Warner
had the authority It has been proved that it the
custom TO employ the clerks at all hours when the work
.reqSIsd IT, and there Was no express limit put to the
that rule Hazen went into the institution to render the
Tor extra work was entirely an afterhought. His pre-
decesor had performed service late hours when re-
quested and he received $40 week and no proof
the Art Union and he disposed to find fault with them
for this berality. IT, however he had right to IT, he
would have demanded it Why did Haxen make out bill
included He receiped the bills delivered them and vet
now presents another claim against the association for
other services He presents his bill for his services and
does not give any to understand that other
claims Why did he Tot make the reservation In fact
il is thing which has been Matched by Mr.. Monk II
must chow that the defendants knew that such was the
fact They are not bound to pay under such circum.
work, and had consideration about extra work. Mr.
Cozxens, who President, and Col. Warner and Mr.
Jarvis testified that it the custom for the clerks
work long as there work to be DONE Now it can
not be disputed that clerks expected to execute the
work Of their employers In the of the Art Union
g1atuty was given to the clerks when they had been
heavily worked, but there claim for extra work.
1t was given as it were, by way of encouragement and
not because the clerks entitled to it matter of
another should be given After making some remarks on
the testimony of Mr.. Monk Jr., as to the knowledge
which Mr. Conzens had of the Sunday work. Mr. Fullerton
observed that Hazen should have left the Art Union
without claiming compensation for extra work and that
the first thing they heard Of the claim was in the sum
Of lssa period cd S Of more than eighteen month";
the claim was extraordinary and rendered matters very
suspicious. As the plaintiff himself had been present
during this trial. it struck Mr.. Fullerton that he was
merely cats paw for other parties who are desrous OF
dragging the Affairs Of the Art Union before the public and
to share in the plumber that is left Throughout the trial
Mr. Monk has been very prominent party and it was
evident that the suit only the prelude to an
other He has held out threats that he viii make an ex
Poure OF the affairs Of the Art Union but the managers
have defed him. and thus proved their willingness to
have their affairs examined After passing severe
structures on the character of Mr. Clark counsel hoped
that his Honor the Judge would take the character Of
the whole testimony into consideration.
Mr.. Darlington, on behalf Of the plaintiff then ro4e,
and after expressing his surprise at the address Of the
opposing counsel raid that the testimony OF all the wit
concurred about the rendering Of services on the
part of Hazen As to those services being extra vas
point TO be decided by his Honor the Judge The plain
tiff sued contract contract s founded the mu.
tual agreement between the parties and may by legal
inference drawn from the of the case ex
planning the relations Of the parties be settled as au i'm
piled contract The law always presumes such agree
ments to be made and justice would dictate
Chief Justice Marsha laid down the law clearly this
point and shows that contract is implied when party
knowingly and tacitly allows of transaction The au.
thorty Of the agent may be implied from the acts Of the
parties Now If services not in The regular contract
they extra services.
Judge-There cannot be a doubt that there ia enough
In this case TO show that Mr. Monk employed this young
man, and the company liable but the rate at which
they should be paid was matter Of contract.
Nr. Darington-f the company permitted the employ
ment Of first one clerk and then another by Monk they