The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1894-11-22

WUFt.
whe..ft the q. s. Court convened this
g.orning the wheeis OK justice were
clogged IN consequence Of two Jurors
from Mont county being absent. ~-rney
arrivAa * aalank s.ti, t,,a frat wit.
ness called was Andrew Wright a IN orooco
manufacturer at Thirteenth AMI Walnut
SITS who testified that he has no machinery
In his factory for shaving.
James Bonner, also morocco manu-
1acturer gave similar evidence.
Charles r. Jones testified that he still
has hand shavers employed.
John q. Baker deposed that he has both
machine and hand shavers.
The court ruled out Mr.. Sauisbury's
questions, as they were not pertlnen to
the examination.
Elmor L. Mitchell deposed he WINS en-.
gagged In the morocco manufacture In
this city lD June. 1892. Shaw worked In
his employ fol about two weeks. He was
In the oftioe OF Blumenthal and COMPANY.
and In conversation was Informed that
Shaw was an apprentice of their firm.
shaw was discharged in con sequence OF
the intimidation he received
lively tilt ensued between tho counsel
Tor the defendants and the court over the
admission of question as to the defen I.
dants having uisavo wed all know ledge OF
the conversation. Mr.. Kohn stated that
the rules OF cross-examination were far
more rigid here than In New York State,
The case tor the plaintiff here closed.
The court called Mr.. Mitchell before it
for contempt In failing to answer as a
witness yesterday.
Mr.. Mitchell denied that he had been
summoned as Witness He was inform.
ed by MIR. Thomas that he was wanted In
court, but Mr.. salisbury Informed him
that he would be telephoned for when he
was wanted.
Deputy Marshal Hughes was sworn in
and testified that he had subpoened Mr..
Mitchell In his Office and that no one was
present.
MIR. Mitchell again denied that he lad
been served. and said he came to court 10
consequence OF having seen a notice In
the papcrs that an attachment had been
issued for him.
The court stated It was a serious thing
to treat the court with contempt. Per.
sonal convenience must be left aside at
matter would be further considered.
MI. salisbury opened for the defense
that they moved for non.sult, on the
grounds that no such law is known as
interference and on the matter of proof
he read ut length from Judge Cooley on
Courts. The reason they hal not deInui
red was because the plaintiff had stated It
was neither libel nor Islander.
Mr. kohn flret spoke Oh qualified privl-
lege. Lven according to their own show.
ing they have failei to make out q cause
OF action. 1t has been sad that qualified
privilege applies to all communications.
1t Is not actlonable for any man to ASSERT
his rights at any time. The mere fact OF
statement made applies TO the character
OF privileged communications which are
OF four kinds.
lie maintained that the m oct interesting
the most broad and most i'm portant point
was that OF agency and claimed that the
defondants were not liable for the acts OF
their employees The general principles
oil jurisprudence that lay at the bottom
OF the case we sea by tho hooks that we
have not discovered where master Is re.
sponsible for the deeds of his agent who
does not come within the scope OF his au
tRority. We should not be burdened
with the wrongs OF others, for whose acts
We are not responsible. In this case no
agency has boon established.
In tie light OF all authorities there Is
nothing more clearly Established than
that any statement about the character of
an employe ID case OF qualified privilege.
lie reviewed the case during the time
Shaw was In the works. The evidence
produced showed there was no malice. IL
q communication is actually a qualified
privilege and the statements untrue
malice must be proven and Intimidation.
IL Is against law and justice to hold an en-
~ yer accountable for every act u deed
OF those In his employ. II such u thing
WIS decided by the court then we might
as well know II now as at any other time.
1t will close up factories.
Mr.. McUallieter said 1T was pleasure to
have listened to tho argument mnde by
MIR. h0hn. The case in Issue was no Ii.
bel This action 10 brought to recover
images for the unlawful interference
with the plaintiff In securing work.
The court decided here that all it wish.
ed TO hear was as to this agency. Recess
Was tuken then till 2 o'clock.