Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-12-13
TIE BOYCOTT CAsg.
THREE OF THE DEFENDANTS ADJUDGED
GUILTY OF CONTEMPT.
Messrs. Darlington, Mckay and Cody
Are Declared Not Guilty-Testi-
mony of the Merchants.

The contempt proceedings against ]. W.
Mckay and others, charged with having
violated the injunction of the Court in the
boycott case was resumed before Supe-
rior Judges Armstrong and Buckles, sit
ting in bank yesterday forenoon.
Eugene Dunkall, clerk in s. E. Caring
toms printing Office, was the first witness
called. He testified thai up to two or
three weeks ago the paper called the
Trades Union was printed in Mr.. Caring
tons establishment. The type was not
set by Mr.. Carrington's employees. but by
members of the Typographical Union.
The testimony of Charles D. Monahan,
. foreman of s. E. Carrington's Office, was
similar to that of Mr.. Dunkall.
]. ]. Devine, compositor, testified that
he had set type for the Trades Union, but
he did not know who wrote the articles in
the paper.
Mr.. Monahan, being recalled, testified
that dodger bearing the words Boycott
the Bee" was printed in Mr.. Carrington' q
establishment by order of the Federated
Trades.
Charles Wieger, one of the proprietors
of the NoDpareil store, was called and
stated that on two occasions he had been
interviewed with reference to signing an
agreement prepared by the trades union
people to withdraw his patronage from the
Bee, but that he had declined to sign it.
Samuel Nathan, of 321 K street, testified
that he, too, had been interviewed. and
had declined to attach his name to the
agreement.
Recess.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
In the afternoon Charles H. Gilman. of
the Red House, was placed on the stand
He testified that some time in the neigh.
borhood of November 18th, T. A. Cody
and another gentleman called at his place
and handed him an agreement not to
patronize the Bee. After reading the
paper the witness signed it. He did not
remember whether or not there were other
signatures attached to tie paper. Previous
to this he had been waited upon BY a com.
mittee who asked him to take his adyer-
hsement out of the bovcotted paper. but
no reason was given as to why it should
be taken out
Joseph Thieben, crockery merchant
stated that g. w. McMillin had requested
MIN to withdraw his patronage from the
Bee.
Witness was asked what reasons Mr..
McMillin bad given for wanting him to
Withdraw his patronage, but Judge Buckles
,nterposed, and said that if it appeared
that Mr.. McMillin had made the request of
Ihleben since the issuance of the injunc.
ZION, 1t was necessary to know McMilIin's
reasons.
H.A. Weinstock, one of the firm of
Weinstock, Lubin d Co., testified that be
mad been interviewed on a number of ac.
cesions by the trades union people with
'rafo.orcs to the Bee. The first interview
that he rememberea to- tcc. s.ace about the
middle of October. Two cf three weeks
later, by another committee. This con-.
mittee consisted of Messrs. Mckay and
Harrison. They had been informed, they
said, that the temporary Injunction had
been sci aside, and .hey were at liberty 10
see advertisers and request them to with
draw their patronage from the Bee without
fear of violating the order of the Court.
subsequently another committee waited
on u.s." continued the witness. "Thev
gave no particular reason for wanting us to
Sign their agreement-there was no need of
their doing so, as we understood the cir
cumstances."
Attorney Hinkson-"Was anything said
about the old injunction being dissolved
and a new one issued?"
Mr.. Weinstock-"I believe some refer
ence was made to that. Ny recollection is
that Mr.. Cody said that no Injunction had
been served on him since the old one had
been dissolved"
Mr.. Hinkson-"Did they say anything
about having received actual notices of that
Injunction
Mr.. Weinstock-"Not that recollect.n
IN oir,ot Nv, I'll
the witness said that Mr.. Cody only called
upon him once. He thought he would
know the other gentleman who was with
Mr.. Cody if he saw him. There was some.
thing said by Mr.. Cody about. their side be-
ing willing to arbitrate. 1t was perfectly
friendly conversation. There were no
threats, no forcible language, and no coer-
cion whatever. 1t was merely a friendly
discussion of the troubles between the Bee
and the printers. AT the meeting with
Messrs. Mckay and Harrison" he said,
we discussed arbitration, too. They said
their side was willing and anxious to arbi-
trate. We deplored the fact that settle
ment could not be reached. l was never
stopped on the street oy any of these per-
sons for the purpose Of discussing this
trouble. ] met some OF them several times,
" q casual way, . and we ..ssnls,ed il over
Nothing was ever said to me by the COM
mltteemen as to what course they proposed
to pursueif compromise was not effected
James q. Davis the carpet man, was the
next witness. ION the 18th of November
he said, "a committee, consisting of Mr..
Couy and another man, called On me.
There was no conversation. They handed
me paper, on which there were some sig
natures of business men. I read the paper,
Nd 4; - - -, . L
consulted with the business men. l told
them to call around again in the evening,
and | would give them my answer. They
said all right and left. That was all there
was to it. The paper was an agreement Oh
the part OF the business men to withdraw
their advertising from the Bee if the trouble
between that paper and the printers was
notsettled."
On eross-examination Mr.. Davis said
that when the. trouble first occurred he
signed paper gotten up by the business
men, which was proposition to endeavor
TO settle between the printers and the Bee
There were no threats made and the con-
versation was pleasant.
Julius Lewis, the next witness, testified
that he was merchant in this city. He
remembered that some time in the neigh
borhood OF the 18th of November, a COM
mittee of the Federated Trades called at
his place. They handed my brother a
paper" he said. He read it, and showed
it TO me; / read it, and told him to sign it.
That's all there was to it. There was no
conversation to speak of, and that was the
first and only time we were waited upon
by any committee"
Gus Lavenson stated that he was also
waited on by the Labor Committee. He
did not know who any of the committee
men were. They told him. of the trouble
the printers had had with the Bee and
wanted BIN to help them along by taking
his ''ad.'A out of that paper. They said
nothing about wanting to injure the Bee
Witness told them he could not take his
advertisement out just then owing to con-
tract he had with the Bee.
A. b. Sanborn recalled to the stand and