Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1886-10-28

! What DIS recnrd is on the labor cues.
ton. The only case tried before him.
in which the rightsof an employer and
empioye were directly involved, was
the case OF Louis Grossgross VS.. VIM.
l.. Reid. Reid hired Gross0ross to
work for him On his farm, In 1883. fur
SIS per month and board. Groesqrose
worked eight days, plowing, and on
the eighth day he and his employer fell
out about his resting too much, and the
next morning he quit work, as he tes-
titled. by Reid's consent. Reid denied
that he consented for him to quit and
refused to pay the boy. He came to
see Judge Williams, who informed him
that he was not legally bound to pay,
and he refused to pay. Grossgross
sued him for $4.56, being the wages Cor
eight days at the rate of Sis q month.
The plaintiff was required to give
security for costs, before the Justice by
Judge Williams, who appeared for
Reid. A trial was had before jury,
and Grossgross had q verdict for So.
The case was then taken to the Cir
cult court, where two trials were had.
The first jury hung and the second
gave Grossgross $4.56, the whole
amount claimed. On the last trial
there was no evidence offered to show
that Reid had suffered any damage
because Grossgross did not work his
time out. Judge Williams then fled
a motion for u new trial, charging that
the Court and jury both committed
error. This motion he argued at great
length. Judge Thomas took the mo.
ton under advisement and did. for the
sake of the important principle involy-
ed in the case, what he was not bound
to do-he went to st. Louis, to the
library there, and after thorough ex-
animation of the question, wrote an
opinion of 25 pages OF legal cap, and
filed it Feb. 26. 1884. In this opinion
the Judge discussed three classes Of
contracts. First, contracts for the sale
Of articles; second, contracts to do
work by the job, md third. contracts
for labor fora specific period. The rule.
as he says, as laid down by the Sp-
one agrees to do work by the job, as
building house or digging ditch,
and he does part of the work, but
quits without any cause before he COM
pletes it, he is entitled to recover for
what the work done is reasonably
worth after deddctlng the damage the
other partc has sustained by the breach
of the contract; but IL one agrees to
work for a specific period, he can re-
cover nothing when he quits work be-
fore his time is out without any cause;
whereas the rule laid down in New
Hampshire, Iowa and Kansas, and by
Mr.. Field and Mr.. Parsons, is that in
ALL cases of contract the iaborer can
recover what his work is worth, after
deducting the damage the employer
has sustained by the employees failure
to work his time out or complete the
inh II N M q np,f r.sH the rs,ucx n<.
applied IN Missouri and elsewhere
Judge Thomas said in his opinion, II
must confess that the New Hampshire
doctrine is more in accordance with
my views of the law. I can see no
difference in principle betw cen build
ing contracts and contracts for services
tor a specific period. Suppose
A. undertakes to work for B. for twelve
months, and B. puts him to clearing
land or piowing, and he works for
eleven months and abandons the WORK
without any cause: q large tract of
land has been cleared or pIowed, and
B. has received the benefit of it-now
why should he not be required to pay
for this benefit. allowing him for any
damage he may have sustained by
reason of A. g failure to work the re-
naming month? I feel that the courts
oaS aS w S0AaPOA ONOty NuC VOAV OAAIty
and right, and II he has received
a benefit from another's labor, he
ought not to be permitted to retain
that benefit and refuse to pay for 1t.
No one ought to be permitted to de-
mand his pound Of flesh without doing
eyen-handed justice on his own part.
But 1t matters not what my individual
views may be on this subject. I am
bound by the deliverances Of the Su-
preme court" The opinion concludes
as follows: defendant got eight days
work Of plaintiff, retained the benefit
of the work and refused to pay for it.
Is this equitys IT may be argued that
it is good equity, but bad law; but
say equity is law and law equity. We
have had one hung jury and the plain
involved is small and the sooner the
litigation ceases the better it will be
for both parties, for the winner will be
loser.u The new trial was denied.
After this ruling of the Court Judge
Williams was still not satisfied, and he
prepared and took the case to the Su-
preme court, where it is now pending.
We ask the people to study this case
carefully and see II they can discover
the enemy of the workingmen he has
been portrayed to be by certain design
ing parties. This opinion was delivered
at time when there was no question
in regard to labor agitating the public
mind, and we take It that the history
of that case shows Enthusiastically where
the sympathies of Judge Thomas and
Williams are in their cool moments.
Here was a laboring man so poor that
he was required to give security for
the costs before the Jnstice would hear
=. III Ts.As had