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

dietely ceased to publish the paper. He
did not recollect having seen the advertise.
ment in the Trades Union calling upon
laboring people and their friends to boycott
the Bee.
Upon the conclusion of Mr.. Carrington's
testimony Judge Buckles announced that
| in the opinion of the Court the witness had
sufficiently exonerated himself
Judge Armstrong added that the pub.
fishing of the paper itself was not obiec.
| tionable, but it was the appeal contained
| therein to boycott the Bee that exception
was taken to. All the employees who set
| up and print paper containing such mat
ter were guilty of a violation of the injunc-
| ton.
In conclusion the Court stated that unless
something developed in the argument that
| PENDANTS Cuthbert, Cody and Mckay would
also be found not guilty of contempt. The
| only defendants that there was any cues.
ton about were McMillin and Laing.
George w. McMillin was then called to
the witness stand. He remembered that
on the 18th day of November he had been
served with an Injunction, and since then
he had never done anything in violation of
the Courts order. Regarding the CONVEX
| sation with Mr.. Thieben, the crockery mer-
chan, Mr.. McMillin said he told Mr., THE.
ben that he was surprised to see him ar
rayed against the trades union people, and
asked him II he was not going to stand
| in" with the printers. Mr.. Thieben. he
| said, replied that the Bee people had done
right by him. in the matter of the afi-
| davits, and he wanted his name put among
the friends of the printers.
| On cross-examination Mr.. McMillin
stated that be went around with commit
tee informing merchants that another COM
mlttee would be around shortly, to request
| them to withdraw their patronage from the
Bee. Witness denied that he had asked Mr..
Thleben to lake his advertisement out of that
| paper. He only talked to him as a friend
| and said be was sorry to see him arrayed
against the Union. Mr.. McMillin said he
| had not been appointed by the Typograph.
| ical Union nor the Federated Trades to
visit the merchants, but had appointed
himself to assist the committee that was
going around.
Mr.. johnson here announced that there
was no more testimony to be offered for the
! defense.
Judge benson then took the Witness
stand, and made q statement with reference
to the conversation he had with Mr.. Car
rlngton, referred to by the latter in his testi-
mony. The Judge said that his recollection
OF that conversation was that he met Mr..
harrington, and the latter complained of
| being made a defendant in the suit. He
SAID that he was only doing the press work
on the Trades Union, and was not disobey-
ing the injunction. Mr.. benson said he
| explained TO Mr.. Darlington that the mere
printing OF the paper was not objectiona.
BILE, but If that paper contained obectiona-
bic matter, he would be violating the in.
junction by printing it.
Both sides now announced that they were
finished with their evidence, and were
| ready to make their arguments.
Judge benson, before making his OPEN
| ing, asked the Court if itcould be intimated
what points the Court was in doubt upon,
so that be might confine himself to those
points and save time.
MIR. johnson spoke up and said that the
Court had already given its opinion, and
had discharged Messrs. Darlington, Cody.
CuthbeIt and Mckay.
Judge Armstrong disputed this. He said
he believed Cody and Darlington should be
discharged. and probably would be, but
as to Mckay and Cuthbert the order
had not been absolute, and might be
changed by the argument
Judge Buckles added that there was no
aeupy ~ the Courts mind as to the gnin Of
the defendant Laihg.
Attorney johnson took exception to this
Latter statement, Iemarking that the Court
should not give its decision before the ar.
gument was heard.
Judge Buckles replied rather sharply
that Mr.. Johnson could have the benefit of
the exception.
Judge Armstrong said the same excep.
ton might be taken to the discharge of the
oil dafa 49,, IL i
that he was only looking out for his own
side of the case.
After this little tilt the arguments were
commenced. The Court announced that
both sides would be limited to one hour.
Mr.. Johnson objected again, saying that
the case was one of the most important
that he was ever engaged in, and he wanted
it put on record that the Court had denied
him full argument.
Judge benson then made the opening
for the plaintiffs, and was followed by Mr..
Johnson for the defense. Mr.. Hinkson
closed for the plaintiffs.
THE DECISION
Upon the conclusion of the arguments
the Judges held brief consultation. Then
Judge Armstrong announced that the Court
was OF the opinion that Laing, Cuthbert
and McMillin were guilty of contempt of
Court, while Mckay and the others were
not guilty.
In its previous opinion the Court had
stated that Cuthbert would in all probable
ity be discharged.
!Gdge Densen asked permission to say a
few words. lie said the plaintiffs had not
prosecuted this particular case with any
feeling of revenge or antipathy, but had
only prosecuted it because they believed
they were right. In conclusion Mr.. benson
, asked, on behalf of the plaintiffs, that a
nominal fine De imposed and that they not
be imprisoned.
Attorney Hinkson acquiesced..,
Judge Armstrong announced ..snat mas
much as the question of heyeotting was
new one, and not as yer July understood
by the public in general, nominal fine
would De Mposed--namely, $50 apiece.
he added, however, that it would be an
example, and he intimated that in future
heavier Fines would be imposed.
1t was then ordered that the defendants
found guilty appear in Court to-day to be
formally sentenced
Before an adjournment was taken Judge
Buckles announced that he would render
his decision in the contempt case against
V. S. and C. K. McClatchy in a few days
and would forward his decision to Judge
Armstrong in writing.
The case of G. NJ. Harrison, H. P. CASA
way, and others, cited to appear and show
cause why they should not be punished for
contempt, was continued until December