The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-04-05
ADVERSE DECISION GIVEN
The Eight-Hour Law Strikes 4 Serious
Snag in the Superior Court.
General Term Finds that Il Does Not Apply
TO Weekly Contracts-An Appeal Taken
Other Cases Determined.

The Superior Court, in general term. dis
posed of some important cases. yesterday,
as nay be seen by the court record else
where in this paper. The most important
of these was the suit of John Grissell
against Noel Brothers. flour and feed mer-
chants. Judge Taylor. of Room /. wrote
the opinion. which covers considerable
space and furnishes interesting reading
matter for the working classes who are in
terested in n ruling OF the court on the
eight-hour question.
This case involves the question OF the
eight-hour-law. and it is tho first time 1t
has come up for decision in a higher court.
The action was brought by the plaintif,
originally. in the court of a ~jurtice of the
peace to recover extra pay for extra time
worked. It resulted in q judgement against
the defendant. The latter appealed from
such verdict. and the case was tried. in
special term, in Superior Court. No. 3. by q
jury. and a verdict was given the
plaintiff for SIPS. on which, over the de-
PENDANTS motion for "a new trial. judgment
was rendered. From that Judgment the
defendant appealed 10 this general term.
The firm of Noel Brothers Incorporated
their business on Aug. 20. 1890, uDder the
name of Noel Brothers Flour and Feed
Company. Among their employees was
John Grissell. who had been with them
since May "a previous. before the firm was
organized. He continued to work Tor tue
company until March Il. 1891. when he quit
because 10 refused to increase his wages.
Grissell had no contract except with the
firm of Noel Brothers,. and no one was
present but himself and Ed Noel when 1t
May, 1890. one Of the men
quit and Grisssll applied for the
place. Ed Noel told GTisseIl that he was
paying the man who had quit S1.25 q day,
end GrisseIl agreed TO take the place at
that salary. with the understanding that
be was TO DO paid by the week. There
was no further evidence In support OF bis
contention that be was employed by the
day for a fixed per diem compensation.
The evidence for the defendant consists of
statements made by John Shumar. Vance
Noel and Ed Il. Noel. Shumar testified
that Grissell had told him he was getting
$3.50 n week. and that he was employed by
the week. Vance Noel. the book-keeper of
the concern, also testified that Grissell had
told him he was employed by the week, and
his account on the firms books was kept in
that way.
Ed Noel. the manager of the business.
testified that the corporation mado no eX-
press contract with Grissell. after thor
business became n corporation. Whom ne
applied for the place of one of the men
who had quit, and was told that he would
have To have his team and wagon ut the
store at 7:l5 In the morning. and might be
detained late some nights. be assented, and
made no talk about any eight-hour law.
The wages agreed upon were $3.50 \ week,
and he was not hired at the rate of Sl.25 q
day. Grissell admits that he never de-
handed pay for overtime until he
Quit the employ of tho firm. March
II. 1891. Then he demanded extra money
for each day OF over eight hours work,
which was refused by the company. He
further admits that he understood that
when no was paid each week he was re-
ceivIng all the money due him under con-
tract for work performed during tho pre-
cedIng week. but says that he objected
every payday because he was receiving no
extra pay for extra work. Another admis-
SION made Is that he never notified manager
Noel that he had a claim against the conn.,
PAW for overtime until he quit its en-
plOy.
Ransom Harrington. a fellQw-employe.
testified that be heard Grisselr tell Vance
Noel that he was working ten hours a day.
and that he ought TO be paid for
it. aud further he heard Ed Noel
tell him If he didn't like
both he and Grissell did quit. The court
holds that the evidence given clearly and
decisively shows a contract of the plaintiff
90 work for the defendant by the week for
q weekly stipend of $50, which has been
fully paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Therefore. unless the act OF March g. 1889.
establishing eight hours as a days work.
deprived Grlssell OF the right to mako y
contract to labor by the week for III agreed
cum as compensation for u weeks labor,
the verdict of the jury in this case Is con-
trarv to the law aud Is not sustained by
sufficient evidence. The court believes
that the act of 1889 does not deprive
parties of the right TO make contracts
for work by the week for an agreed weekly
compensation. and for whatever portion of
the week that is necessary IN the particular
line OF emDloyment: and that where O par
~ has entered into srch an agreement. act
ed under it, performed tho labor and re-
ceiyed and accepted the agreed wages. he
must abide by IT,. Further. the act of 1889
simply declares eight hours = days work,
but does not prohibit an employee working
beyond that length of time, with or with
out compensation. If he so chooses. In con-
cluslOn. the court believes that the act of
1889 does not apply in this case. and the
trial court should have sustained the de
PENDANTS motion for new trial. for the reason
assigned, viz: that the verdict of the Jury
Is contrary 10 law and not sustained by
sufficient evidence. and because of that
error the iud gment of the trial court is re-
yersed.
The cause is therefore remanded with in
structIons TO set aside the Judgment and
the entry overruliuG the notion of the de-
fendant for "A new trial. and 20 grant the
defendant n new trial.
Plaintiffs attorneys entered notice Of an
appeal To the Appellate Cour.
|