Morning journal and courier., 1886-05-11

iefnal Information are Admitted
 Some Slight Discussion The Case
 Continued Until To-MOrrOw.
 The boycotting case of the State vs. Gid den came up again by continuance in the City court yesterday morning, Judge Pickett presiding. Judge Pickett announced his decision. He had decided not to admit the amendments offered by the prosecution. Attorney John w. filling then offered the following new amendments, which differ in their nature from those which were disal- lowed, and simply yet comprehensively de- fine and explain the nature of the alleged criminal offense:
 And the said city attorney on his oath of office further complaint and information makes, that at said city on the 27th day of April, A. D. 1886, said Glidden with force of arms, did then and there unlawfully threaten Adolph Mendel and Isadore Freed man, both of the town of New Haven, and copartners in business therein, under the firm name of Mendel & Freedman, and carrying on business as mer- chants in said city, with intent to compel said Mendel & Freedman against their will to abstain from advertising their said busi- ness in the JOURNAL AND COURIER, daily newspaper published in said city, which ad- vertising the said Mendel & Freedman then and there had legal right to do, which said threats were in substance es follows: "If you advertise in the JOURNAL AND COURIER l and my associates will boycott you;" and that the said Glidden had many associates in the premises, to the city attorney unknown; all which is against the peace of the State, of evil example and contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided.
 And the said city attorney on h1s oath of office further complaint and information makes that the said Ben amin F. Glidden at said city of New Haven on the 27th day of April, A. D. 1886, did with force of arms then and there unlawfully threaten Adolph Mendel and Isadore Freedman. both of the town of New Haven, copartners in business therein under the firm name of Mendel & Freedman and carrying on business as mer- chants in said city, with intent to compel Mendel & Freedman against their will to abstain from advertising their said business in the JOURNAL AND COURIER, a daily newspaper published in said city, which advertising the said Mendel 6 Freedman had a legal right to do, which said threats were as follows: eff you adver- tse in the JOURNAL AND COURIER we will boycott you;" meaning that the said Gidden and many others, his associates, which asso- ciates the said Glidden then and there had, and who are to the city attorney unknown. would refuse to trade with the said Mendel & Freedman, and would boycott and break up the business of those who were trading with or should trade with said Mendel & Freedman, unless they ceased so to do; would persuade and compel many others, against their will, to cease trading or refuse to trade with said Mendel & Freedman, and would thus break up and destroy the busi- ness of said Mendel & Freedman, unless they should abstain from advertising their said business in said JOURNAL AND COURIER, and also consisted of other threatening words l,Io oi@ cation, against the peace of the State, of evil example and contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided.
 The amendments were strenuously oppos- ed by Mir. Platt MT. filling replied that Attorney Platt when he got to the Supreme court with the case would, if the informa- ton were not suitably amended, claim that set forth. Attorney Platt held that the court had not the power legally to admit the Attorney filling held in reply that the nolo contendere plea made by At torney Platt was no bar to the admission and acceptance of these amendments. They were clearly and wholly within the jurisdic- tion of the court. After sharply criticising Attorney Platt's nolo centendere action, Mir. filling in closing said: As It is bold naked case on the legality of boycotting, the term should go to the Court of Errors on defini- tion at least as broad and comprehensive your honor.defnes it and believes it to be. If, as MT. Platt is pleased to say, we cannot prove our allegations, let them go to trial and that will be the easiest way to dispose of the case.
 Mr. Platt denied that he had tried the case on pure legal technicalities, as MT. Alling had clearly implied. He had attempted to stand in the case on the broad ground of personal liberty.
 MT. filling disclaimed any intention to have the case decided on questions of cour- tesy. Attorney Platt would have it under stood that this boyco5ting was a simple act of generosity and kindness in bestowing warning. On behalf of the merchants of New Haven we waive all this kindness.
 Judge Pickett decided to allow the amend nents as proper and clearly admissible, say ing: 'I desire to be exceedingly careful in this matter, but will pass on this point now. don't think the nolo contendere bars the State from amending its complaints, and the court is not surprised that the State wants to amend it's complaint, this being 8 wholly new question. I disallowed the previous because they were a sort of misjoinder of counts. These counts are simply an amplifcation of the present counts. They simply define them more fully. They are allowed"
 Attorney Platt asked for continuance to consider what their next move would be- Judge Pickett thought the case should be tried as soon as possible, but said that the defence should be allowed plenty of time. day, the defence in the meanwhile to notify the State whether or not it will go to trial on questions of facts or not. In the after noon the prosecution were notified that they need not come into court on Wednesday with their witnesses.