The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-25

of John F. May against the Life Insurance
Company of Virginia and other insurance
companies. to recover damages for alleged
conspiracy to prevent him from securing
and retaining employment. is far reach
ing in effect The question came on for
hearing before Justice Cole on a demurrer
filed by the defendants to the declaration
made by May, and in overruling the de-
murrer the court held that 'whosoever
by unjustifable acts or words causes an
other to he discharged from the employ
ment of a third person in whose employ
he is and would have remained for a de-
finite or indefinite period, but for such
act or word, or who by such acts or words
prevents such person from obtaining EN-
ployment with such third person with in
tent to iniure the person employed or
seeking employment, and such person is
damaged by such discharge or failure to
secure employment, is actionable for dam
ages" Besides the Virginia Company, the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
of New York, and the Prudential Insur-
ancc Company of America are named by
May as defendants, who, in his suit filed
through Attorneys Leckie & Fulton and
Douglass & Douglass alleges that they en-
tered into a conspiracy to injure him by
refusing to give him employment For
this May claims s15, 600 damages
Mr. May alleges that on account of a
certain unlawful conspiracy or agreement
| entered into by and between the compa-
MES named, with the specific purpose, in
tent, and design to injure him, they TN
lawfully and wrongfully interfered with
his right to seek, obtain, and retain en-
ployment, undisturbed and unmolested, in
whatever line he saw fit to choose, and to
follow, in earning livelihood. In accord
ance with the agreement, they did, he
states, interfere with his rights and pre-
vented him from obtaining employment
with one of the companies mentioned, and
in another instance, after he had obtained
employment with another of the defend
ant companies, he was discharged by that
company because one of the companies
objected to his employment.
May explains in his declaration that he
was originally employed by the Metropoli-
tan Life Insurance Company and worked
for it considerable time as an insurance
agent During this time he says he be-
came thoroughly familiar with the bust
ness and was practically untitled 'or any
other business He proved himself SO
satisfactory to that company, he s.ates,
that he was promoted to the position OF
an assistant superintendent. He left the
employ of the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company. he says, in good standing and
upon his own election, because and for
no other reason than that he felt he could
better himself by so doing. Two years
afterward he states he was employed By
the Life Insurance Company of Virginia,
and for the same reasons which prompted
him TO sever his connection with the Me-
tropolitan Life Insurance Company, he
quit the employment of the Virginia, leav-
ing il in good standing and without any
charge against him in any wise touching
or affecting his fitness or competency as
an agent. or his fidelity as an employe. 4
few months after leaving the Virginia
Company, he sought employment with the
Prudential Company. He alleges that he
had every assurance from the local super
intendent that his services were needed
and desired by that company; and that he
would have been employed by that com
pany, but for the fact that such employ
inent was objected to by the other de-
PENDANT COMPANIES. and was in violation
of an alleged agreement existing between
them In consequence of which, he says,
he was refused employment. Shortly
thereafter, May alleges. be obtained en-
ployment with the Metropolitan Life In
surance Company, and would have re-
tanned such employment but for the TACT
that the Virginia Company maliciously
and without any just cause, objected to
his being retained by the Metropolitan
COMPANY. and because that company so
objected. and for no other reason, the Me-
tropolitan Company discharged him. May
alleges that the objection made by the
Virginia Company was in pursuance OF the
unlawful agreement it had entered into
with the Metropolitan and Prudential,
and was made, he declares, with he
specific purpose, intent and design TO in
iure him.
Mays declaration contains three counts;
In the first. he claims he was damaged IN
The sum Of S. coo. because he was unlaw-
fully prevented from getting employment;
in the second he claims he was damaged
in the sum Of 5000. because he was dis
charged through, and by reason Of, the
unwarrantcd objection and interference
by the Virginia Company; and, in the third
count. he claims that because he was
black-lsted and boycotted by the defen-
dants and that he was injured in his rep
utation and claims the sum OF s. coo for
the injury and damage which he thus sus-
tained to his good name.
Judge Cole after the argument, took the
question under consideration, and, after a
careful consideration Of the same, handed
Down his opinion on last Tuesday morning.
wherein he sustained the first and second
counts OF Mays declaration and sustained
the demurrer as to the third count, and
gave the companies twenty days in which
to plead to the declaration.
This suit seems to have been the first
Of its kind filed in the District Of Column
bia, and presented a novel question to the
courts in this jurisdiction.
The next case of public interest which
is coming on for trial IN the criminal
branch OF the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict is that against the Rev. Liston D.
Bass. who is charged with using the
United States mail for unlawful purposes.
The Rev. DR.. Bass, according TO the in
dictmcnt returned against him by the
grand jury, IS also sometimes called
Prof Bass because of his connection
with what was known as the Bureau of
Civil Service Instruction" The Indictment
under which Bass is now held for trial is
the second Of o similar nature and for a
like offence which has been found against
him in the District The first Indictment
returned against him was filed last
spring, and some time during the fall was
mol pressed.
The last Indictment was returned by the
grand jury on December 81 1900. and Bass,
when arraigned upon the charge, pleaded
not guilty to the offence and gave surety
in the sum OF So 900 for his appearance for
trial. II was expected that he would be
called TO trial during the coming week
but at the request OF his counsel. Attor-
neys Leckie & Fulton, the hearing was
postponed until Monday, March IS next
In the indictment against Bass It IS al
legged that he In circular letters sent
through the mails represented himself TO
be the president of the Bureau OF Civil
Service instruction, and by deceitful arts
and false preteuces obtained money from
persons residing elsewhere in the United
States desiroug of ma IifVinP Themselves