The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1894-11-21
FIFTH EDITION.



United states Court.
Whom the United States Circuit J,ourt
convened yesterday afternoon MI, Sauls-
bury began the cross.examinatlon OF
Mark A. Shaw, the plaintiff In the case.
John Z. Sparrow has been employed az
bookleeper and Cashier with Blumenthai
a Co. for about twelve years. He ldentl.
ned the handwriting on postal card with
his Initials as having been written by him
and which had been received by MIR. Glib.
con. lie seemed q rather unwilling wit
meas. Daniel W. Pierson was 10 absolute
charge OF the works.
He always hired the bosses under him,
Patrick Munday was foreman Of the shav.
ers. He had control over the man under
him and had the power TO hire and dis
charge the men under him.
On cross examination he stated that he
had no Instructions to send out such
card.
James +. Farley testified that no was
member OF the Delaware Morocco Com.
pany,and also about shaw seeking employ
ment from his COMPANY. He considered
That shaw was good iourneyman. He
got postal card similar to the one Offers
cd In evidence. Patrick Mupday came to
him some weeks alter Shaw had besn
WORKING and asked him to lay Shaw Off
and Munday would not give an assurance
TO give the boy work and then he was
continued at work.
tendent oil the morocco works OF the w. ].
McClary In 1891 and has been there for IS
years. lie knew Shaw and remem bered
he worked there and was discharged. The
reason he was discharged was because
Mr.. MoOlnry told him the people below.
meaning Blumenthai and Co.. claimed
him as an apprentice. In 1899 Shaw was
employed and discharged as ON the for.
mer occasion.
William J. MoClary testified that Shaw
was discharged because he had been
called up on the telephone by voice he
claimed to be their apprentice.
The understanding with morocco manu-
faoturers 10 that they will not harbor an
apprentice claimed by another firm.
In crOss-exaninatfon he said he woul d
not have discharged shaw II he had not
felt eatletied that II was Mr.. Plersons
voice that came over the telephone.
James Keellngs was boss shaver In
1891 In the factory OF l T. Quigley. Shaw
was en- pioyed as a journey man. and after
Tour days be was discharged on account
OF trouble ct Blumenthai's, as Mr.. Quigley
had conversation with him He had a
with Patrick Munday, who
sald that We would have Shaw discharged
from McGlary's factory and any place thut
he wound worn In the city.
Robert W. Tatman was morocco man.
ufacturer In 1899 In this city.
Shaw work ID four or five days In Juno
1892 FOR his firm. Having Understood that
Shaw was an apprentice Of Blumenthal d
Co., the foreman discharged Shaw by
witness orders.
Louis Walsh was an apprentice at Blu.
menthal Il Co.. . works and Iemem bersd
the day Shaw was dischared and corrobor.
ated Shaw as to the manner OF his dis.
charged by Munday.
Court then took recess until this morn
In q at 10 O'Clock.
James J. Gibson was tho fret witness
Ina at In Fri fha on
vs. Blumeathal Co., In the United States
Circuit Court this morning. dc rsoog-
nized postal card az having been reoslv.
ed by his firm.
MIR. salisbury objected to the GARD being
offered as evidence.
The court maintained that It was com.
petent evidence to go In pending the con.
nsction OF Dlumenthal Il Company with
ble agents and the extent OF their powers.
l. L, Quigley testified that he received o
postal card by due eourse OF mail.
Mr.. salisbury Objeo ed to the admis.
sion Of the postal card. He Afterwards
waived the objection and entered all ex-
ception. The card was dated March Z,
1890.
An attachment was lssued for Mr..
Mitchell OF the llrm Of Tadman. Mitchell
was In New York.
The postel oards sent out on April 9TH,
1890, reDd as follows;
"One Mark Shaw an apprentice to us
as shaver loft without cause and our
notice. Please no not em ploy him."
Cornelius Munday was the next witness
and testified that he was general foreman
In the works OF Blumenthal and Com.
pany at the time Shaw was discharged.
An attachment was issued for Daniel
W. PiersOn Jr
Witness testified that he was In tho OF.
fire and that Mr. Sparrow talked over tho
telephone to MI MoClary's place In 1891
or 1893,
In cross examination he testified that
he considered Shaw an apprentice when
he was at MoClIry's place lie ortiered
Shaws discharge because he was not do.
Ing the same work as the other boys.
This meant n way of disclp iine.
William Haunu Jr depossd that in 1890
he was working at shaving In hlunen.
thals factory. lie described the discharge
OF shaw.
Cornelius J. McGonl1le was an appren.
tice with Shaw In March. 1890. Was d.
meDt, and Patrick Muntay sent him to
watch Shaw If no won't into Earley's
ahop.
Mark A. Shaw, the plaintiff was recalled
and gave detailed account of his wages
since he finished his apprenticeship.
In consequence OF the non.appearance
OF Mr.. Mitchell 1t Is the Intention of the
counsel for the defendants to ask for
non.suit
The court stated that when Plerson and
Mitchell appeared they would he both
held so that they would be on hand when
wanted.
The court adjourned until 10 O'Clock to.
morrow morning.