Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-12-11
THE BOYCOTT CASE.
VoLUMINO0s ARGUMENTS BY THE
ATTORNEYS ON BOTH SIDES.
TechnicaIities Raised nv tho Defersa
overruied by the Counterfeit
mopy Being Taken.

-A6sODi ". IL hdIliSOO, w. w. CutlOert
}. D. Laing, G. W. McMillin and T. A
Cody, cited to show cause why they should
not be punished for contempt of Court, il
having, it is alleged, violated the injunction
recently issued in the boycott" case, wa
resumed before Judges Armstrong ant
Buckles yesterday forenoon.
As soon as the Court convened, tn
Judges announced their decision on the
technical objections submitted to them Tues
day evening by counsel for the defense
The decision overruled the objections.
Ex-Judge Mcguire, of counsel for the de
Tense, then moved for jury trial. Thi.
was also overruled.
1t was then ordered that the charg,
against the defendant, C. N. Harrison, b,
dismissed, as his name did not appear OF
the original papers.
Judge Mcguire then made a formal OBJ
lection to the service of the Injunction. Fl.
said that according to the record the in
junction or restraining order in question
was granted after the issuance of summons
upon the original complaint, and further
that to the copy Of the complaint served on
defendants with the order there was nc
verihcation attached. This he said made
the injunction void.
Grove L. johnson, Judge Maguire's asso.
ciate, cited authorities in support of the no.
sition taken by the defense, and particu-
ularly from the Code of Civil Procedure
which provides that the injunction NAV
be granted at the time of issuing the sum.
mons upon the complaint, and at any time
afterwards, before judgment, upon afi.
davis"
Elk, Judge benson, counsel for James Nc.
Clatchy " Co, held that it vas now toe
late 10 bring up the objection made by the
defense. They were now before the Court
and the case must go ahead.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
In the afternoon Judge benson cited au-
thorities to substsntiste the position he had
taken. He called attention to the decision
OF the Supreme Court in the case of the
Golden Gate Mining Company VS.. Superior
Court, in which the Court held that the
person enjoined had received actual notice,
although the injunction had not been
served. Persons are bound by the ipiuuc-
ton, even though the Injunction is not
seryed-in other words, it made no differ
ence, il is the order that is violated, if there
Is any violation, and not the process.
Attorney Mcguire, in reply, held that the
decision cited did not affect the rule laid
down in the statutes. The statute speaks
for itself, and especially prescribes the pro.
Gees to be followed. In the csse cited by
counsel for the other side the decision re-
ferred to person who was the agent of the
incorporation enjoined. II was the incor.
poration that had been enjoined, and It's
agent was presumed to abide by that in
junction without service. But service was
absolutely necessary in the case of the en-
Joined party.
We'll, then" asked Judge Buckles,
what does the Supreme Court mean when
1t says that no order is necessary ?"
at does not say So" replied Mr.. Mcguire.
In the case cited the order was made. The
corporation enioined was served with the
injunction, and the respondent was serv-
ant of that corporation. There is the dis
tinction. Service had been properly made
on the enjoined corporation, and the Court
only held that it was not necessary to serve
the agent, too"
After lengthy debate, in which Messrs.
Mcguire, Johnson and benson participated,
the Court decided that the objection of the
defense was not good. Ii was held that the
defendants had received actual notice and
that was sufficient.
The Court was then directed to the OBJ.
lection of the defense in regard to the va.
lidity OF the injunction itself-it having
been served after the summons had been
issued. The Court intimated that argu-
ment on the matter would be listened to.
and attorney Johnson took the floor. After
giving the dates on which the various or
de1s and papers were issued in the case,
showing "a p
issued fifteen days prior to the summons.
Mr.. Johnson argued tina under the pro-
visions OF the statutes there was now really
no injunction and no restraining order 1t
was dead, and the Court had no power to
bring it back to life. The order that stands
now, he said, is not the order that was
served upon the defendants, and they had
no knowledge of any other order having
be. served with it.
Judge Buckles -"Do you claim, Mr.
Johnson, that this injunction is void, OF
only voidable ?'
Mr.. Johnson-"It's absolutely null and
void. The Court had no more right tc
hold the defendants under it, than il
would have to adiudge the publishers of
the RECORD UNION guilty of contempt, for
printing to, days proceedings in this case,
without giving them hearing"
After some further argument by Mr..
johnson in the same line, the Judges
stopped him and held lengthy consulta.
ton. The Judges evidently did not agree
as Mr.. Johnson was instructed TO proceed
with his argument.
After Mr.. Johnson had concluded, at.
torney benson argued against the point
raised by the defense. He maintained that
it was too late. aud even if it were not
the motion would be an improper one
The only point that could be made out o.
Mr.. Johnson's argument, he said, was thai
the Court had erred. In that case it should
be brought up in the shape of an appeal
Mr.. benson cited authorities in support O.
his argument, and occupied considerable
time.
When he had concluded, the Cour
rendered decision overruiing the obiec
ton. In giving the decision Judge Buck
les said: Il do not agree with Judge Arm.
strong. | believe that the position taker
by defendants counsel is correct. But hers
is the injunction, and the parties cited are
here now FOR violating the order. So tn,
objection will be overruled.n
Attorney Johnson protested that tn,
Court had decided upon the point without
giving him sn opportunity TO reply Il
Judge benson, bat the Court was not dis
posed TO go back on its decision.
The next move Of the defense was to de
mand a copy of the affidavit on which thu
order which brought the defendants int
Court had been based. Attorney johnson
said no such copy had been received by tn,
defendants nor their attorneys.
Judge Armstrong said ii was not neces
sary to furnish the copies.
The defense took an exception to tn
ruling, as they did to nearly all of tn
Courts rulings.
The Court then ordered both sides t,
proceed with the case proper, the techni
calities having all been disposed of appar
emily.
Mr.. benson began by Offering in testi
mopy the original complaint and othe
documents in the case, to which the de
Tense objected and was overruled. Thes
included the affidavits of V. S. McCla,chy
on which the order to show cause wa
based, and the order itself.
School Director elect c. N. Harrison, VIII
is prominent member of the Typoersphj
cal Union, was then called to the witnes
stand.
The examination of the witness was yer
slow on account of the frequent argu
ments that arose over objections raised b
the defense.
In answer to questions by Mr.. Densor
Mr.. Harrison stated that to the hes
of his knowledge, S. E Darlington an
G. w. Mckay were not members of th
Typographical Union, but ". W. Cuthber
]. D. Laing, T. A. Cody and George c. NJ
Millin were members. The witness toll
who were Nom hers nf varinI1s rOn,paiftaa