The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-05-06

L Ciitc<E4 ~ ktsu AuAiit4Raf ScSih yN-St>NS~s
against Z. II. Smart. the First avenue
contractor. who was arrested and charged
| with violating the city ordinance which
| makes 1t a m.sdemsanor for anyone to
| require more than eight hours labor on
!, public works. Mr.. Bronson, counsel for
/ tha contractor, refused to offer any tes-
tiInony when the prosecution had rested.
He conten;ed himself with moving to dis
4 miss the action as not proven. but this
| motion was overruied by Justice Austin.
and on The failure OF the defense to offer
| any testimony judgment was pronounced.
The court. in passing sentence. said tina.
| he would impose the minimum fine provid-
! ed by the ordinance. which is $40, on ac-
| count of the fact that il was Mr.. Smart's
| first offense. The contractor viii be called
| upon 10 pay the costs OF the trial. which
| will not amount 10 over SO.
This is the first conviction that has been
| had under ordinance No. 4,4T which
! names eight hours a days labor on ali
| municipal work, and provides that any
| contractor Or other person engaged in city
work who shall require of the working
| men employed thereon more than the
| specified number OF hours of labor shall
| be fined In any sum not less than $40 nor
4
1 of the action.
Iab0rers Gratined.
| The prosecution was conducted by City
Attorney Ellis De Bruler and Meade EN-
ory. Of Bausman. Kelleher & Emory wf1o
was especially retained to look after the
prosecution and to assist in Ii by the
Western Central Labor Union. Many
members of the union were present in
court during the SESSION, and when sem
tence was pronounced look of gratifica-
ton oyerspread their faces. To them the
trial was a battle made by organized
labor FOR the upholding of law passed
Tor the benefit of workingmen, and natur-
ally the victory Won was pleasing TO
them.
-Four witnesses were examined yes.er-
day morning for the prosecution and all
or them contributed evidence that proved
Damaging to the contractors defense.
Three or the witnesses were workiuemen
who were employed on the contract of
regarding FIRST avenue. They testified
that tiny were employed to work by the
day att '6o per day, and that Mr. Smart
was superintending the work.
Bert Matthews. a shoveler. swore that
he had been employed by johnson by the
day. and had been required to work ten
hours each day. All OF the men worked ap-
proximately. he said. the same period of
time. When they quit little carrier than
the regulation time they were locked
Gus Anderson testified that he had been
hired to work by Johnson. He was paid
by the day at SLIGO for ten hours work
Anderson swore that al of the man were
expected TO put In ten hours of good work
Henry Kelly gave evidence of a positive
character for the prosecution. He swore
thar Contractor Smart had employed him
personally to work on the reprads, OF ,ha
| avenue. and that he had been paid at the
| rate or S1Go per day, working ten hours
Foreman Johnson was the las, witness
| Tor the prosecution. He was evidently
trying 10 shield Mr.. Smart, and Mr. Em.
DRY, who conducted the examination.
| found that the task OF eiicifiug evidence
favorable TO the contention of the prose-
cution was not an easy one. johnson ad-
United. In reply to direct questions mt bv
! ME- Emory. that contractor Smart had IN
| structed him that the mer were to work
ten hours each day and that If they did
| not put in full time they were tn he
| locked. The docking was to be made on
| the basis of ten hcurs for a days work.
Bronson Talks for smart,
This finished the case for the city Mr.
Bronson. for the defendant. moved tina.
the case be dismissed. He claimed that
there was absolutely DO evidence connect
ing Smart with the commission OF the
crime charged in the information. He,
said that Mr.. Smart had admitted tina. he
was president or the Incorporated firm of
smart Company. but that the prosecu-
ton had not proven or attempted to prove
that Smart had been vested with power
by she stockholders OF the company IN
employ men or To do anything in connec- .
ton with the operations OF the CORPORA
| tion. THE prosecution has not shown"
said Mr. Bronson. that Mr.. Smart was
vested with power 10 assume the RESPONSE
| hfty which /, is necessary for him TO
have in order 10 connect him wrh the
commission of the crime charged -
The court does not agree with vou''
interrupted Justice Austin. The witness
Johnson swore that he received all his or
ders directly from the dersndant.''
Mr.. DE BTuler replied for the cry. He
declared that every material allegation
had been prc-en and that the evidence had
stahlished the fact beyond the shadow of
doubt that Smart was responsible and
that the ordinance had been violated
Mr.. Emory closed the arguments Tine
| spirit and the letter OF the Law have beer,
broken" said che able Young advocate
Mr.. Bronson does not tniscorseive the
| proof offered nor the ordinance: NJ is an
advocate who j. playing his part and try
| ing 10 make the best OF the matter Mr.
Emory quoted Webster on the neaning OF
the wore require" the language OF the
]
| tAat eight hours labor" etc. 20 snow tina;
| the prosecution would simply have 20
! prove that the defendant exacted az his
| right. or insisted upon the men working
| ten 5oHrS. This proof said Mfr Emory
/ had been made with crystalline tranSiu-
| cency-' il was rot necessary for the pros
| ecu.ion - show that the defendant had
/ ny force of arms. compelled the men 70
! work over eight hoArs. Ia prove thai
| smart had violated the letter and spirit Of
| the ordnance. The contention Of the de
/ PENDANT shat Il any one was guilty Ii was
| the foreman Johnson. did not excuse Mr.
Smart
| Ne. Emory concluded with a plea for
judgment in conformity wiki The proof es-
| tab}ished by the prosecution.
| TIE court overruled the motion for dis
| rnissai and theu, OF the statement Of Mr.
bronson that 10 testimony weuid be Of
/ fered for the defense. pronounced llGdg-
| nlent and sentenced the defendant To pay
| Gre Of $50 and costs
| Mr.. Bronson IS considering the question
Of appeal 10 the superior court NA