Johnstown weekly Democrat. (Johnstown, Cambria County, Pa.) 1889-1916, 1890-06-20
COURT PROCEEDINGS.
Regular june Term-second Week-Thurs-
day Forenoon Session.

Trial of Philip E. Chapm VS.. the Cam
bria Iron Co. resumed. S. S. Blair argued
at length to the Court and jury for the
defendant, reviewing the principal fea.
lures of the testimony and emphasizing
the strong points in favor of the Cambria
Iron Co.
MIR. Blair was followed by Judge Orbis,
of Bellefonte for the plaintiff. He made
a most mastery plea-a brilliant, elo-
quent, and ingenious argument for his
client.
The Judge then delivered his charge to
the jury, which was in part as follows; {;
The suit is action brought by Philip e.
Chaplin by which he seeks to recover
from the Cambria Iron Company money
which he alleges to be due him for ser
vices, beginning the 1st of July, 1881, and
ending the 1st of January, 1888.
The counsel have argued this case be-
fore you very fully and while will not
attempt to comment on all the points pre-
sented IN evidence, it is your duty to con-
slider every point brought out in evidence
on the witness stand and make up your
verdict after, careful consideration.
will divide this case into two branches,
the second branch including the time be-
tween the 1st of January 1884 to Ist of
January 1888. Sometime in 1883 Mr.,
Chaplin was asked TO become General
| Manager of the Cambria Iron Company.
That appointment to begin the 1st of Jan
uary 1884 and to continue indefinitely.
BY allegation of plaintiff his salary was to
be $4,000 per year. The defendant de-
mes this, alleging it was only to be $1O,-
900 per annum. While the President of
the Company has power to make ap-
pointments, such appointments are sub
ject TO approval by The Board of Directors
and must be confirmed to be valid. As an
officer of the corporation Mr.. Chaplin
should have been familiar with the rules
of the Company and when the Board fixed
his salary at $4,000 per annum unless he
dlssented at the time he would be bound
by that decision. If he accepted and was
paid his monthly wages at the rate of
$4,000 per year as his monthly vouchers
show, as matter of law he can recover
nothing more.
The first branch into which have di-
vided this case covers the period Mr..
Chaplin was employed by the Cambria
Iron Company as Superintendent of the
Gautier Steel Works.
Prior to the first of February, 1881,
Mr., Chaplin, then living at Cleveland, o.,
was solicited by Mr.. D. j. Morrell tooome
to Johnstown to take charge of the
Gautier Steel Company, limited, stating
that this company would be merged into
the Cambria Iron Company, and that as
Superintendent of this department his
salary should be $1,000 per annum. Mrs.
Chaplin also testified that he was to re-
ceive $4,000. He came to Johnstown
to .ook INTO the business to determine
whether he would accept the offer or not.
After acquainting himself with the busi-
ness and requirements, he told Mr.. Nor
rel that he would accept the position.
He went back to Cleveland and returning
took charge of the Gautier Steel Works,
according = to this arrangement, the first
March, 1881. Tie fact that negotiations
were pending tor the sale of the
Gautler Steel Works to the Cambria
Iron Company, that it became the property
of that company the first of March, but
was still run as separate department
until the first of July following is a mat
ter to be considered by you. The de-
PENDANTS deny that there was any
arrangement made by Mr.. Morrll to pay
the plaintiff $4,000 year. They affirm
that his pay was $1,000 per annum,
$5S3 333 monthly for which vouchers
were drawn. These different vouchers
signed bp Mr. Chaplin will help you to
determine what the salary was, but are
not absolute. They do not prove con-
clusively that was the whole of his
salary for according to the testimony of
the defendants the total of all salaries was
not paid at Johnstown.
On the question submitted by counsel
for defendant that if the stated salary of
the plaintiff was $1,000 and that there
was secret understanding with Mr., Nor
rel by which he was to receive $4,000
more from the company, 1t would be
fraud to which the plaintiff would be
party and could not recover, we would
submit to you in this connection what the
general practice OF the company was and
if IN harmony with that practice they paid
him 81 1000 from the Johnstown Office and
$4,000 from the Philadelphia office it
would not be fraud.
1t is acquiesced in by both sides that in
addition to his salary $500 was paid him
at one time, which the defendants claim
was a mere gratuity. 1t it were gratuity
it could not be construed as evidence that
it was due him on salary but if it were
shown to be a recognition of the compa-
ny's Indebtedness to Mr.. Chaplin for his
services in addition to his salary then it
forms a basis for the plaintiffs claim.
II ia also shown that he received 81 600