Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-11-22
menthal's Place and Tho court sustained

cate MS lpurnayman shaver. lie was
paid SB u week aud given extra wages /
for 0Ycrwork. lie received a postal card |
from B!umenthal & Co., but it had been |
bGraed when the Delaware Co. quit |
business. Farley also snid that Mundy |
came to him and wanted him to dis |
charge Shaw, but he refused to do it |
unless Mundy would give him employ |
ment. Mr. salisbury did not bring out |
any additional facts on cross, eXamina-
ton.
James Crooks, foreman of w. ].
MoClary, testified that he gave Shaw
employment in 1891, He worked about
three weeks, aud then word came to
him through Mr.. McClary that lie had
better lay Shaw off, because Superin.
tendent Pierson claimed that he was an
apprentice Of Blumenthai & Co. Crooks
hired Shaw again III 1892, and through
Mr.. McClary's instructions laid him off
again for the same reason. The witness
did not discharge Shaw personally, but
gave Hayes, the boss shaver, orders to
do SO.
w. J. McClary was next sworn. He
remembered Mark Shaw was in his en-
ploY and told what wages Shaw made
while working for him. One day the
witness was called up over the tele-
phone and told in voice, which he
recognized as that of Daniel Pierson,
that Shaw was his (Pierson's) aDpren-
tice and he had him laid off, as there
was an understanding between the
manufacturers that they would not EN-.
pioy each others apprentices.
James Keenan, testified that he was
foreman of Quillcy's morocco factory
and after Shaw came to work there Mr..
Quigley told him to discharge him as
there had been trouble with Shaw at
Blumcnthal's.
r.. W. Tadman sworo that he EN-
ploycd Shaw and kept him four or five
days and then discharged him because
Mr.. Mitchell told him he had better dis
charge Shaw as he was ali apprentice in
Blumenthal's factory.
Louis Welsh testified that he was an
apprentice in 1888 and 1889 and worked
with Shaw at Blumenthal's. One day
Mundy and Shaw were out together
and when they came in Mundy told
Shaw to 90 to work. While Shaw was
sharpening his knife Mundy came in
and told him to get out of the shop. Mr..
Salisbury cross.examined Welsh but
did not shake his testimony or bring out
any additional facts.
There was fair attendance at the
United States district court when the
case Of Mark A. Shaw VS.. F. Blumen-
thai & Co. was resumed yesterday
morning.
Mr.. Ward, counsel for the plaintiff,
called the names of Elmer Mitchell and
|. L. Quigley, but when they did not
respond lie asked James ]. Gibson to
take the witness stand. Gibson identi-
fed the postal card that figured so
prominently in Tuesdays session, as
received by him at his factory. Mr..
Ward wanted to offer the postal card in
evidence, but Mr.. Salisbury objected on
the grounds that it was not within the
scope of Sparrow's duties to write such
postal, without special instructions
from L. Blumenthal IL Co. Mr.. Kohn
made speech on the same grounds
4 The court ruled that the card should
be admitted as evidence, as it had been
proven that Superintendent Daniel
Pierson, Jr., and Cashier Sparrow were
authorized agents of II. Blumenthal 81
Co., and had full authority to engage
and discharge men, and also transact
business involving thousands of dollars.
Mr.. Ward then read the postal card,
which was dated March 7th, 1890, and
read: "One Mark A. Shaw, an appren-
tice to us as shaver, left our employ
without cause or notice. Please do not
employ him." Signed by Daniel Pier
son, Jr., superintendent, with the initials
-. i. S." under it.
/. Il. Quigley was called. He stated
that in March, 1890, he received a postal
card, similar to the one offered in evil
dence. Mr.. Quigley produced postal
card and it was offered in evidence. The
wording was exactly like the one re.
ceived by ]. 3, Gibson.
The next witness was Cornelius
Mundy, who was foreman OF Blumen-
thal's when Shaw was an apprentice
Mr.. Ward attempted to prove by the
witness that Superintendent Pierson re.
ceived letter from him (Mr. Ward,
giving Blumenthal & Co. notice not tc
interfere with Shaw, and after such
notice the company did interfere. Mr.
Salisbury objected and the court over
ruled the objection.
In reply to questions from Mr.. Ward
Mundy testified that one day he was il
the office of BlumenthaI q Co., and in
talking with Cashier Sparrow said tina
Shaw was working TT McClary's fac
tory. He heard Sparrow call up Nc
Clary's over the telephone and hearc
him say that one of their boys, meaning
Biumenthal e. Co., was working at Nc
Clarys. The witness then left the room
and did not hear the rest Of the con
versation.
On cross examination the witnes!
said he ordered Shaw to be discharged
He heard complaints that Shaw was no
doing his work.
Elmer +. Mitchell and Daniel Pierson
, Jr, did not answer to their names whel
, called, and Mr.. Ward had attachment
issued for them.
William Hanna testified that on thu
day Shaw was discharged from Blu
mcnthal's he saw him and Patricl
AIundy come ia. Shaw took his knit
and sharpened ii. He was about to g,
10 work when Patrick Mundy, the Dos
shaver, came over 10 Shaw, took hi
knife and said: Get the h out o
here"
Cornelius McGonigle testified that h,
was working at BlumenthaPs, and ON
day after Shaw was discharged the wit
lcsS h'ts oIueieu W htliGh huliuy "
go the shop Of the Delaware Morocco,
, Co. and see if Shaw came out of there
He saw Shaw come out and SO informed
Mundy.
Mark A. Shaw was recalled and CAV
Il statement of the average wages h
made while he worked after he LEI
Blumenthal's.
The plaintiffs side was closed, wit
, the exception of the testimony q
AIltnLnll n nj pinrccr, mud n finn l.niil