Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-11-29

The Jury's Award In tho Shaw VI
Blumenthal Case.

The Jury's Award In tho Shaw VS..
Blumenthal Case.
The United States district court was
crowded Thursday morning when the
case of Mark A. Shaw against f. Blu
menthal s; Co. was resumed. a4
Mr.. Ward called Andrew Wright.
james Bonner, Charles II. Jones and
John G. Baker, to prove that hand
shavers were still employed in morocco
factories.
Elmer e. Mitchell, the witness who
could not be found Wednesday in the
city, was called to the stand and testi-
fled that sometime in June, 1892, when
he was in the office of f. Blumenthal dJ
Co., talking to perintendent Piersont
and Cashier Sparrow, they told him
that he (MitchelD had Shaw, an ap-
prentice, working for him. When he
returned to the factory he had Shaw
discharged.
A long argument then took place over
Mr.. Salisbury asking the witness if
Blumenthal 81 Co., through Mr.. Ullman,
has disavowed all connection with
| Shaw. Messrs. Kohr, Salisbury and
Ward took part in the argument. The
court ruled out the question, on the
grounds that it was asked on cross
examination and that the defence would
| first have to introduce it in chief.
After the examination Judge Wales
asked the witness why he was not pres
ent Wednesday. Mitchell denied ever
being summoned.
Deputy Marshal Hughes was sworn
and stated that he told Mitchell to be
present. The latter swore that to his
| lo Arr ha ha1 ,auoraaa,, tl,, da,,1t,
marshal.
In reply to Judge Wales, Hughes said
he thought was Saturday week when he
summoned the witness. Mitchell testi-
fled that he was in New York on Satur-
| day.
Judge Wales passed over the matter
for the present. The plaintiffs side here
rested
Mr.. Salisbury opened for the defence
and moved for a non-suit; first on the
grounds that all of the damages alleged
in the case were when Shaw was in his
minority, therefore his father was the
only one damaged. He also contended
that there was no such cause for action
known as interference. He cited
authorities in support of his contention.
Colonel Macallister followed for the
plaintiff. He opened by saying that the
action was not one for libel, although
the plaintiff in his declaration claimed
that the defendants sent to certain
morocco manufacturers postal cards
warning them not to employ Mark A.
Shaw, The case is one to recover
damages for the wrongful interference
of the defendant company in the course
of regular trade, profession or craft
Mr.. Macallister cited number oil
authorities in support of his contention
Court adjourned at o'clock until p. m
When the United States district court
opened Thursday afternoon Colonel
Macallister resumed his argument
against non suit in the case of Mari,
A. Shaw VS.. f. Blu,nenthal tS Co.
He cited q number of authorities in
support of his contention that Plerson
Sparrow and Mundy were the author.
ized agents of the company in this city
ana that it had been clearly proven by
witnesses.
Mr.. Ward next argued for the plaintiff
and contended that the principals were
liable for the acts of the agents, nc
matter if the evidence of malice was
brought out or not, so long as those acts
were within the scope of their authority
NOR wbather the nrincinals ,vera ava ~
ae .ho,a ~ 80 H. Ia .iat p;a.,s.,,
h sneni VI sId.i .ii iietsoh
6Puiiom anu ntuhs'y hiiSo 1no Piace vi
Blumenthal d Co., and that the question
of scope of authority was not one pI
law, but one of fact and consequently
one for the jury to decide.
a,J ,,.,,,,d -, ~, o,x.,, H., -: !.
ah. ~, hhu aisueu on she saiie llnes as W
dlo IN the morning, citlng NUMBER oi
authorities in support OF his contention
for non-suit.
Court adjourned until 10 o'clock Fri
dav morning.
-------
When the United States district cour
opened on Friday Judge Wales handed
down his decision OH the motion for {
nol-suit in the case of Shaw VS.. Blumen
thai u Co., and refused the motion. Judge
wales salu
The contract OF apprenticeship was made
by Charles Mullin with Shaw's father, II
was void as far as Mullin was concerned
when he went out of business but Shaw
remained in the employ of Blumenthal 4
Co., as successor OF Mullin d Pierson and
was to remain until the time of his ap
premiership had expired. After Shaw
mad been IN the employ OF Blumenthal q
Co. until January 26th, 1890, when he was
reprimanded for misconduct and was dis
charged. After this discharge Shaw ap
piled to several places but was either re
fused or discharged within few days aftei
securing work ON notices sent out over the
stamp Of Daniel Pierson, who was known
as superintendent of Blumenthal & Co.
There is all unwritten law among the
morocco manufacturers of Wilmington
not to engage the apprentices of another
manufacturer. This is wise rule fol
their self-protection. 1t has been admitted
by the counsel for the defendants that the