Evening journal., 1894-11-22
NEARING THE FINISH
In the Famous Shaw -Blumen-
thai Interference Suit.
THE PROSECUTION RESTS ITS CASE

and the Defense Enters on tho Argu-
ment for Non-suit ON the Grounds of
Non -Rssponslbiiity Of the Firm-Eimer
Il. Mitchell PurRes Himself From Con-
tempt,
Blumenthal case now being tried in the
United States Circuit Court before
Judge l. e Wales, were late this morn
ing, and 1t was 10 10 before the tally Of
the Jury was read and the prosecution
resumed the examination Of its witnesses
Andrew Wright. James Bonner, John
q Baker and Charles r. Jones were
sworn to show that hand shaving Is not
obsolete. This was done In order TO
determine damages. Mr.. Salisbury
objected to the evidence but IL was ad.
mitted, the court reserving the right to
rule II out later II he should deem wise.
Elmer + Mitchell testified that Shaw
worked for him part OF two weeks. He
had on one occasion. In June 1893, been In
r. Bnmenthal & Co. . office and had had
| talk with Pierson and Sparrow, when
one Of them stated that Shaw was an
indentured apprentice He told Tadman OF
I this and Shaw was discharged In conse-
quence of an unwritten law between
manufacturers not TO employ the ap.
prentlces OF other firms.
witness Charged with Contempt.
Judge Wales then informed Mr.. Mitch.
ell that he had been subposnaed to attend
| this court but had failed to do so and
| asked the reason Mr.. Mitchell stated
| that he had not received the summons.
He saw In the papers that an attachment
had been issued for him and he deemed
It advisable TO make his appearance
Deputy Marshal Hughes swore that he
had served the warrant, but Mr. Mitchell
iast as firmly averred that he had no
recoleotion OF the occurrence. Mr.
Salisbury had told him that he had
subj 9aaed him but would telephone him
when wanted.
Judge Wales said that this seemed a
singular case OF oblivion, but Ia view OF
Mr. Mitchella statements he should con,
slider that he had purged himself OF
contempt.
The prosecution then rested It's case
A Motion OF Non-Euit.
Mr.. Salisbury then made motion FOL
non suit, and stated that the argument
would be divided between himself and
Mr. Kohn He opened basing hil
argument on the ground that there wal
} no such action under the law 80 thai
brought by the plaintiffs That the boz
being a minor when the alleged acts wer,
! committed, any injury would be to th,
parent and he should be the party to thi
! suit he cited a case in Pennsyl vania
Bradley Va. Pierson, which he said wa
} sIuqularly related to this from the fac
! that Pler4on & Mitchell was the firm Ii
| the case, and application for work wa
3 made to r Blumenthal & Company.
! Mr. Kohn based his argument on tn
o | ground that the offense II libel was
] qualified privilege Of which there wer
' four classes When the publisher OF tn
! libel acted In good faith in the dlscharg
Of public or private duty, or a mora
3 or legal duty, or as master givinl
4 character TO servant in his employ, o
/ | In the prosecution Of bis own rights AM
business; when such libel is published Il
legal or parliamentary proceedings.
He reviewed the history Of Shaw
connection with the factory, and tina
y under all the changes Shaw WAS locke
upon es an apprentice. and he so con
sidered himself. That there had been q
/ malice shown, and even II there wa
3 evidence Of the falsity of the charge
3 made it would be no evidence Of malice
The Main Contention.
The third claim. for non-suIt and th
Q most important, was that there had nc
been Bny evidence connecting the de
z PENDANTS with the charges. He disclaime
d that Munday, Sparrow and PlerHon ha
= no authority to act in this case for the firm
Master Is not responsible for the act
OF a servant or agent unless Performs
within the scope of his authority. III
J, said that when he heard the testimon
IS he determined that IT was wrong but
} was enough to care for ones ow
|, faults and not endeRvor to rectif
/, those OF others II there was any rsaso
II why this case should 90 to the jury
o must be on the ground of implied al
% thority. His further argument Was 0
y this question whether any man can
q held for the actions Of any agent or in
Is piled authority.
4 the Argument Against Non-suit.
y y Mr.. Kohn spoke until 12 80 aud the
y Counselor MacRllister opened his argu
! ment against the motion. He elaine
i, that the suit was brought to reoovl
Il damages to the plaintiff by the unwa
! rsnted interference Of defendants with
! view towards preventing MN ITO
i obtaining work, and not one (
u libsl When he FIRST noticed u
case he was Of the opinion that such
case was novel one in jurisprndenc
but he has since found many cases vel
a. similar which he cited.
d Judge Wales stated that he drew Il
a. inference from what Mr. Kohn had sal
= that the defence looked upon the acti'
n Of Munday, Sparrow and Pierson
lv wrong, but disclaimed that the firm W
r. In any way responsible. To shortl
4 argument and save time be suggest
=. that counsel restrict themselves
w proving that there was authority on Q
o. part of these agents.
. Court took q recess at / o'clock for o
hour.
DIR. Hulburd's Lecture Gratifyi
- Success