Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-12-13

the decision was that the Injunction should
be obeyed, and that there would be no con.
ce,ted action on the part of the trades
unions until the injunction was set aside
or dissolved. That was the general in.
struction given out.
Upon the conclusion of Mr.. Sanborn's
testimony, Mr. Hinkson asked that shor,
recess be taken in order that he and his
associate might consult with their client:
and agree as to whether or not it was ad
visable to offer any more testimony on the
part of the plaintiffs.
After recess Mr. Sanborn took the stand
again, and asked permission to correct {
statement be had made to the effect tina
the second injunction issued had been dis
cussed by the Executive Committee. HI
said he had misunderstood the question!
put to him and had answered that thu
second injunction had been discussed. Thi!
was a mistake. There was no discussion
on this injunction. as there was no way O.
knowing that such an Injunction existed.
The counsel for the Bee proprietors Their
| announced that they had decided not to of
fer any further testimony for their side.
Attorney johnson then addressed thu
Court. He asked for the discharge of each
and all of the defendants on number o.
grounds. He maintained that there was
no proof that any of them had violated in
any manner the so-called Injunction of the
Court. Besides this Mr.. Johnson referred
to the various technicalities heretofore
raised by him, and based his motion Oh
them in conjunction with the point that
case of contempt had not been made out.
Judge Buckles interrupted Mr.. johnson
and stated that the only point the Cour
would consider would be in reference t
the value of testimony offered, and as Il
whether or not the defendants had violated
the injunction. The other points he sale
had been ruled upon.
Mr.. johnson explained, however, that hi
had some decisions and authorities to cite
which would show that the defendant.
could be discharged on the other point.
raised. Mr.. Johnson then proceeded tc
read from the case of the People vs. Chas
P. O'Neill 9th. Cal. J, in which the Su
preme Court reversed the decision of the
lower Court, on a point involving the
method of service. Another authority was
for the purpose of showing that no person
could be punished for contempt for violat
ing void order. Several other opinion:
in point were cited, after which Mr.. John
son made an oral argument, in which BIZ
was interrupted by the Court
After consultation, the Court stated
that 1t would prefer to hear some testi.
mony for the defense. They were moi
ready to decide upon the points just then
said Judge Armstrong, but they would
hear Mr.. Johnson again after the testimony
was In. For the present the motion would
be overruled.
Mr.. johnson stood silent for some time
and then took exception to the ruling OF
the Court. He said he was not usually
thrown off his balance, but he was consid.
erably surprised, and considered it unjust
that he should be stopped in the course OF
an argument in which he had great faith
DE then asked permission to consult with
his clients, and short recess " as taken.
When Court reconveped Mr.. Johnson
said he did not like to take the RESPONSE.
biiity of deciding upon what course to pur.
sue IN the case in the absence of his associ.
ate, but he supposed he would have to.
u. w. Mckay, one of the defendants
and President of the Council of Federated
Trades, was then called TO the stand. He
testified that on November 18th COPY OF
an Injunction was served upon him. That
was the only one ever served upon him.
Since that service he had never intimidated
or threatened the subscribers or patrons OF
the Bee. Since the SERVICE Of that order
witness said he had obeyed the order of
the Court.
On cross-examination Mr.. Mckay denied
that ne had been acting on any committees,
neither had he resigned any position or
office he had held in the Federated Trades.
So far as he knew there had been no chap,<e
in his conduct since the issuance of the in.
junction.
The witness was asked if, a..ter the in.
junction was issued, the Federated Trades
withdrew the boycott from the Bee.
Mr.. johnson objected, and a lengthy
argument between him and Judge Arm.
strong ensued. Finally the attorney was
interrupted and told that time was toe
precious, and that the objection would be
overruled.
Mr.. Mckay then answered Mr.. benson
question by saying that he did not have
positive knowledge that there was boy.
colt. He had not presided at any meeting
when authorization was given for the
printing of circulars bearing the words
"Boycyott the Bee" were printed, neither
was he present when any committees were
appointed to take action against the Bee
He was not aware who authorized the
printing of the boycott advertisement in
the Trades Onion.
recess was taken until Z O'Clock in the
evening.
EVENING SESSION.
Mr.. Mckay was not recalled when Court
re-convened in the evening, and W. W
Cuthbert was placed on the stand. He
stated that the injunction papers-the first
injunction-were served on him on the
10th of November Since that time he had
at no time violated that injunction, either
directly or indirectly.
Cross. examined, Mr.. Cuthbert stated that
TO the best of his knowledge the Typo
graphical Union, of which witness is Pres
ident, had nothing to do with the publ;ca.
ton. of the Trades Union He did not
know Of any resolution having been passed
authorizing lne puS..cauon OF that paper.
Witness knew of bill Of $3.50 being al
lowed by the Union in favor of s. E. Car
rington, but he did not understand that it
was for printing the Trades Union. Wit
ness did not know OF any persons receivip =
money from the Typographical Union for
work done on the Trades Onion, or in any
connection with Inc boycott on the Bee
Persons had received money but witness
could not say that it was 10 assist in boy
cotting the Bee. He had been under the
impression that the money was to assist
persons rendered destitute through the
lock. out.
S. E. Darlington was the next witness
called. He testified that he was in the
printing business. He said, in answer 10 q
question by Mr.. Johnson, that he had
known V. S. and G. K. McClatchy a great
many years, and had no idea why he had
been made defendant in the present con.
tempt proceedings, and had his name
dragged before the public.
On Mr.. Hinkson's motion Mr.. Caring.
TOMS oncUpr w stripEpD or1t