Waterbury Democrat., 1901-03-14
IN BOYCOTT CASE.
Motion for Erasure and Demur-
 rer Denied.

Contractor Sandiford and Ingraham. the Boycotted Man, Gave Testimony Judge Bradstreet and Prosecutor Bronson Oficiated To-day for the Last Time - Naugatuck Case or Frederick U. Bowditch Against Goodyear Metallic Rubber Shoe Company Was Heard in Superior Court.
 The criminal side of the district court opened this forenoon at lo o'clock. Judge Cowell presided Eros ecuting Attorney Bronson then announced that the case against Mrs Mary kehoe for selling liquor without q license was settled for S23; also tue case against Tony CiarIi, of Nauga- tuck, for abusing a horse, was settled for the same amount. The case against Martin Blansfeld for non-support or his family was continued on hls OWL recognizance. The Blansfelds have settled their differences. Mrs Blans- field is in weekly receipt of S5 from her husband, who told the court that they expect soon to live together again. The arrangements for bringing the only prisoner. Joe Pitch, an Italian, from jail miscarried, and there being no other business which could be dis posed of by Judge Cowell, he yielded the bench to Judge Bradstreet. This was Judge Bradstreets farewell ap- pearance as a judge of the district court in a criminal matter. He will next appear ill criminal matters as prosecuting attorney.
 The case against Joseph Sandiford, walking delegate of the carpenters union. charged with boycotting, was then called. Attorney Peasley, repre- senting the accused. moved that the substituted complaint against the ac- cused be erased on the grounds that the prosecuting attorney had no power to file such a complaint.
 The motion, after considerable discus sion, was denied. A demurrer was then entered and this was overruled, after lengthy debate. The jury was then boiled. Jurors F. J. Finn and Eugene C. Adt were excused, the case being local one. The accused plead ed not guilty and the case began.
 Charles F. Howe, the contractor whom Sandiford is accused of boycott ting. was the first witness. He testi- fled that in his employ was one Hon. CT 1ngraham. q carpenter, since last fall to last January About the 2Ot- of that month the accused informe ed witness that thp job he had was a un- ion one. and that Homer 1ngraham would lave to be discharged or he would order all the other men, who belonged to the union. to leave the job. Howe said he would gladly have paid
 
 union. Sandford replied that if h. graham resumed work at 1 o'clock the job would be considered non-union one and the men would be nned 8 for working the first day and S1 every succeeding day. A warm oral en- counter took place between witness and the accused. Ingraham was discharged a few hours later be- cause witness could not fulfill his con tract had he continued him at work.
 In his cross-eXamination witness said the onfE threat accused made was that the job would be considered non union. Accused spoke to 1ngraham about Joining the union and Ingraham said he would join if he got back the S2-50 he said he had paid accused some , time before. Sandiford replied that the matter would be considered at the next meeting of the union. Witness could not say that accused's statement that the union had voted to consider the job non-union unless lngraham was discharged was passed especially to apply to his job or such jobs like it in general.
 1ngraham was the next witness. He testified that he was on a staging with George Rice and William Gardi- n hnr ,<o cused said to witness: twill you join the union:" Witness replied: Where's my s2.5O I paid to join it:'' Accused replied: 'Oh that's forfeited; it's gone.' Then he warned all the other carpenters, who were all union men, that he would declare the job non-un- ion, as above stated, and would see the plumbers and masons also. Howe's story of the verbal and fistic encounter between accused and complainant was cOrroborated. Witness could remem- ber almost everything he was asked except the names himself and Howe called Sandiford. and which culminat- ed in the physical encounter.
 Mr Rice practically repeated the above statements.
 The defense was q general denial. Sand1ford testified that he never made the statements accredited to him by the witnesses for the state. and it was apparent from the positive manner in which Rice testified that notwithstand- ing he is a member of the union he Is not in sympathy either with Sandi- ford or the union itself He said that when Sandiford warned the men of the consequence of working with a non-union man, he. Rice. cried out: Joe. that is not fair; why do you bother the little fellows so much and let the big fellows alone?" Sandiford said Rice made no such statement.
 The case was closed at o'clock and at 7 o'clock the arguments began.
 The case of Peter Warerera against Contractor Thomas F.. Afaher of New Haven for $5.0O0 for loss of his right foot. which occurred. he alleged. while in his employ while engaged in a sewer trench on Wolcott street some