Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-09-16

BAUeEHAKvs. THE KExBERs oFRICE.
K0KD TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
a Summary Of the Charges Ksde-Thirty
Thousand Dollars Damages
Claimed.

The declaration in the suit Of Bsugh-
man Brothers rs. The Richmond Typo
graphical Union was fled in the Cir
cuit-COurt clerk g Office Yesterday morn
Ing The following statements are con-
tanned in the paper: The plaintiffs
Baughman Brothsrs-show that for
more than three years they have been
partners trading and doing business IN
the city OF Richmond; that their busi-
siness, up to February /, 1886, was
very valuable to them, and yielded them
very large profits that there exists
in the city q trade-union called Rich
mond typographical Union, No. 80;
that in January, 1886, the said trade
union appointed three of its members
Nessrs. g. W. Wilde, W. F. Orump.
and j. NJ. Shelton--a committee, and
instructed them to endeavor to induce
Bsughman Brothers to discharge from
their employ the persons whom they at
that time employed as printers 10 their
brsiness, and to employ in their stead
persons who were members Of the
Typographical Union; that Bsughmsn
Brothers declined to accede TO this re-
quest. and thereupon the committee OF
the Union issued the following circular
RICHMOND, VA, February.4, 1855.
Br. -:
Dear sir,-We Rre relisbrv informed that
yuu are q patron OF Messr Baugn ms q
Frnthers. Richmond Typographical Union.
No. 90 having failed by arbitration 70 IL
dure the above firm to accord to their en-
ployees the compensation cheerfully psio py
every employer IN this city, has. with the
aid OF the Knights Of labor ano 81 trad
orgn n'zsfiors IN this city. hoycOtteo the
establishment OF Messrs. BaugnmRn Bro
therS.
We most respectfully ask you TO with
draw for the present your patronage from
Ness-s BaughmRn Brothers.
On February lSth list OF the customers
Of the said firm will be plOlished IN the La
b0- Herald and In circulars for the guidance
OF our friends -
Please Intimate by postal n you desire
your firm TO be published In tue list
The merits of This boycott VIII De fully e1
plRined IN every issue OF the Labor HerG4G
". 2. CRUMP
J. N SHELTON,
q. ". WILDE.
The LdbOr Herald Office.
Continuing, the paper alleges that al
other members Of the Union advised the
said committee to issue the above cir
cular. and assisted and aided in so do
ing: that the defendants, each acting
separately and al acting together, SEN
q COPY Of the circular TO every person
who had Heretofore traded with Of
bsueht from plaintiffs in their business
that in thus sending the circular de
! PENDANTS intended to threaten each o.
plaintiffs customers that if he or shs
continued thereafter TO trade with tn.
nlaintifis the defendants would inJurS
! That pereon's business by every injury
they could command. vhsther by per
guRsion, threats, intimidation, or force
that the said circular was published II
tie Labor Herald, and that in many
issues thereof the publishers Of the La
bor Herald threatened to do any person
who thereafter bought from or sold t.
the plaintiffs anything al the injury II
his business that they could do him
that the plaintiffs had the lawful righ
to buy from and sell to any person
that pleased them, and that the defend
ants trespassed on and violated plain
tifs' rights, which the law guaranteed
to them, when they intimidsted person!
from buying from or selling TO the
plaintiffs that there has existed IL
/ this city for twelve months labor or
ganization called the Knights Of Labor
composed o. several thousand persons
that all of its members advised the de
PENDANTS to issue the above circular
and 10 make said threats against tnosI
who traded with the plaintiffs that By
reason Of said threats and the pablics'
tion Of said circular many persons wh'
had previously been customers o
Baurhman Brothers, and would, per
hsps. have continued TO be, were in
timidated and deferred, and from ths
time have ceased to buy from or sell Il
or trade with plaintiffs, to their grea
damage, and therefore they sue.
The damages claimed are s90, 900.
The case comes up al the Octobe
term Of the court.
Mr. William L. Royal represents tn
plaintiffs. No counsel has entered 10
the defendants yet.