Daily Republican., 1882-05-24
SUPERIOR COURT.
.uoyD srATE IRON COM
IaE pa VS. ALFRED COYLE-A
PN.r N..ruDICTFOR COYLE.

Court rem ,he case OF the Diamond
o'cO'k, ,.an IN &c Company vs.. Alfred R.
state lFWr lFSI harrington opened the
CeyIp Ceymept for the plaintiff, ,n,i.1.d ana con, ~
argall1e,lbp hat CoyIe was NOT entitled TO
tended ,I'' ,Ss amount due him, as by
recover 'IO IN the manner he did, he had
quittlnE u ,be company to loss and in
suSlsS,tiu suSlsnispce. He also argued that as
convslissv co'iss were posted in a numcer OF
the ra'ts " .be workshop, Coyle must
place. snnvn M what they required, and
have Kno"H oi,;rg at work had signi.
), \, 1t,nViiia Sia Willingness to be governed by
tu a.n us Mr.. Harrington ask ed the Court
htn ht,r"rt M the Jury that as the rules
spla'',~ ,nosted in conspicuous places
sdt po pIon II constituted contract
H. i ns ras sDT Tifniding on the employees.
uM y, wy Vapdegrt't said that we're 1t not
MI .bis case was such an important
tnas 'h he would not consume the time
ea'e ,,r,,inp it. This is not merely a
" ". INVOLVING the $50 claimed by Coyle
Casiu s.hs decision affects every one of the
!osuausands ous .ur Of hands employed in our
.lua' ,sna 'manutacturing establishments
n1 lasse sEsTieweI the evidence and said that
h' lso sonId not for one moment impugn
Nc \, ,sstimony sv of Mr.. Todd, or say that
tu' an ,, ,od an uutruth, but he would say
,h., w. he thought he was mistaken re-.
snaStinp 'ns what had passed between
sPu,sf sP;mssf and Coyle. After Mr.. Vande-
..ud l.ia had concluded, the Court charged,
s s.tat Coyls was undoubtedly entitled TO
.aonvsr .n" npless the jury were satisfied
.Sst M ba had made other agreements
.hsr .h those he has testified to. The
rs, ot the company were reviewed,
and md tbe Chief Justice said that they
b.d had an nudoubted right to make such
r rnIs, and il the jury think that the
evidence & has shown tLat Coyle knew
AVID entered into these terms when he
INK employment with the company,
than they must find for the company.
The Jury retired at 3 so o'clock and
s4lOcsme in with verdict in favor CT
COyls for so and costs.
The case OF kedden was again called,
when Mr. Sharpley said that he had
NOT heard anything from his witnesses
and was not ready for trial, when it
was postponed until this morning. The
cSeot Atherholt, Fisher & Cows. Thom-
YM. Robinson, was brought before the
Court. Alexander Fuller, Esq, for
the plaintiffs, and Harry Emmons,
ESQ.,, for defendant. The defendants
were sued tor an amount of money due
the plaintiff, and not knowing that pro
Ceedings had been commenced against
them went to Philadelphia three days
after the suit had been commenced, and
paid the amount of the bill. This suit
d for the recovery Of the costs, and Mr..
Fuller asked that judgment be entered
for the amount The case was argued
BY counsel on each side, but the Court
reserved its decision.
On motion Of Alexander Cooper, Esq.
Judgment was entered by default for
slS against the defendant, in the suit
Ofthe Sandwich Manufacturing Com.
pany VS.. John W. Keim.
Argument was heard on a rule to |
show cause in the case of John Guyer's
VS.. William S. Guyer.
At o'clock, Court adjourned until
10 o'clock this morning.