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

amount of claim for damages counsel
claimed Shaw to have been competent
workman, earning at the rate of $3.50
per day. He was out of work for las
weeks which calls for So, 152.4S.
AS an Offset against that all the wages
he has actually gained since that should
be deducted. That amount in total is
$1,4l4.66, leaving a sum of 1,73754 as
an actual loss in wages by the defend
ants course of action and interference.
Another cause for damages which
must be remembered here is the simple
every day constitutional right of the
young man to freely earn his livelihood
and who Is now intcrfered with by this
powerful commercial organization, L.
Blumenthal g. Go. Counsel did not ask
the jury for any specified sum in this
latter count.
MIR, Ward closed in asking for
| damages in wages and such additional
payment as the jury may think proper
on account of the loss in reputation.
In giving his charges to the jury the
court, In accordance with the request of
counsel ON both sides read the prayers
of plaintiff and defendant.
These, Judge Wales said are very
numerous, and in sone instances would
| require the erudtion OF u doctor Of laws
TO comment upon.
| However, the court took them all up,
seriatini, on both sides, patiently and
thoroughly discussing each of the
! proposition, of which there were some
| 80 or 40 in all.
The Court said that the cause of
action in this case is interference by the
/ defendant through his agent and super
intendent with the plaintiff in obtain
ing employment as journeyman shaver
bysendinJ out postal cards and making
certain statements.
The contract was that Shaw was to
serve Charles Mullin as apprentice for
the term of four years. He remained in
that employ two years, when Mullin
gave up business. The management
was represented by Daniel Pierson, and
afterwards by Pierson and Blumenthal,
then Blumenthal & Co. Shaw con.
tinued with the aforementioned firm.
One portion of the contract with
Mullip was in regard to disorderly con-
duct calling for peremptory discharge on
that score if necessary. The Court COM
mented on the discharge by Mundy. II
was peremptory discharge and re-
leased Shaw from all obligations to Blu
menthal 6; Co. The lad was then en-
titled to go where he pleased.
That Shaw was discharged with the
knowledge of Pierson was shown in
evidence. There is no doubt that
through the instrumentality of the
postal cards the plaintiff was prevented
from getting employment and when he
did he lost it again through the inter-
ference of Blumenthal & Co.
The latter claim they did not author
ize the agents to act in this way. The
question is then whether Pierson, Spar
row and the others were acting as
authorized agents of Blumenthal & Co.
The latter are very large manufact,
urers in New York. They themselves
como here very seldom. They have
equipped certain men with authority To
represent them, to contract debts, to
take on and discharge workingmen.
In regard to apprentices, the Court said
there is an unwritten law, wise and
wholesome one, among the morocco
manufacturers of this city regulating
their employment and preventing ap-
prentices leaving their employers fac
tory without cause when, after obtain.
ing skill enough to earn full journey.
mems wages, they may attempt to seel,
employment elsewhere before their ap-
premiership is up and at full journey.
mans wages and palming themselves
off as such.
The question for the jury is was Pier.
son acting within the scope Of his en-
ployment. 1t is true he may not have
been definitely or expressly authorized
But the law recognizes that the principal
is liable IN third person for the acts
of his agent, although the principal did
not authorize or even forbid such
actions. The rule is, the master must
answer.
The case was then given to the jury.
The jury in the case of Shaw vs. Blu.
menthal in the United States Court re-
appeared in court at o'clock Saturday
afternoon after being out Al hours and
rendered verdict of $1,000 in favor Of
the plaintiff.
After the verdict had been announced
Willard salisbury, counsel for the de.
PENDANTS, gave notice of motion for o
new trial.