Waterbury Democrat., 1901-03-13
THE BOYCOTT CASE
Prosecution Starts Out on q
 New Tactic.
NEW COMPLAINT DRAWN UT.

and It Will Be Presented to the Dis
 trict Court-Labor Unions Anxiously
 Watching the Case-It Will Be
 Taken to q Higher Court.
 The complaint for boycotting against Joseph SandifOrd walking delegate of the Carpenters union, upon which he was found guilty in the city court. has been withdrawn and q more viruient one drawn up. This complaint iS framed under section 1,51S of the gem era1 statutes, which. stripped of it's legal verbosity, says that no man shall interfere with another ill any act or transaction which he has q legal right to do. The complaint in full is as fol- lows:
 To the honorable district court of Waterbury, holden at Waterbury, within and for the district of Water- bury, comes Nathaniel R. Bronson. prosecuting attorney of the district court of Waterbury, and on his oath 1 Of office complains and says: That on the 24th day of January, 1901, Homer Ingra ham, of said Water- 1 bury, was and for q long time had 1 been engaged in his trade and occupa- 1 tion as a carpenter in the employ of | one Charles s. Howe, and said Howe l | graham in his employ.
 | That at said Waterbury. on the day | and year last aforesaid, Joseph Sandf- l ford. now of said Waterbury, did with 1 force and arms threaten the said l Howe with injury and with forcing 1 certain other men to leave his (the, said Howe'sl employ. if he the said Howe) did not forthwith discharge the said 1 1ngraham from his employ intending r., T 1 said Howe. against his will. to dis charge said 1ngraham from his em- ploy and cease to continue him in his employ. against the peace, of evil eX- 1 ample. and contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.
 And said prosecuting attorney. on 1 his oath of office. further complains and says that on the 24th day of Jan uafy. 1901. Homer Ingraham. of said 1 Waterbury. was and for a long time had heen engaged in his trade and oc- | cupation as q carpenter in the employ | of one Charles $. Howe. and the said | Howe then had need to continue said Ingra ham in his employ
 That at said Waterbury on the day | and year last aforesaid. Joseph Sandi- ford. now of said Waterbury, did. with force and arms. declare to the said Howe-intending thereby to intimidate
 the said Howe and compel him against his will to discharge said Ingrahanl from his pMplOy-that unless he Ghs, said Hawe) did forthwith discharge
 the said Ingraham from his employ
 he (the said SandfordD would cause certain other men then in the employ
 mcnt of the said Howe. to leave their | said employment. and did thereby in
 timidate the said Howe and compe. | hiEl against his will to discharge the | from | against the peace. of evil example. and | contrary to the statute in such case l made and provided.
 Dated at Waterbury this 12th day of | March, 1901.
 \. R. BRONSON.
 Prosecuting Attorney of the District Court of Waterbury.
 It is the first time such q case has
 come to the notice of the local public
 and 1t Is being watched by every mem- | her Of the numerous labor organiZa-
 tions in the city. Attorney r. NJ.
 peaslev has been retained by the Car
 penter'S union to defend Mir Sandiford.
 Whatever the result of the trial in the
 district court may be it will be taken
 to the supreme court tribunal of the
 state. for that will decide what stand
 ing labor organization have in the
 state. The issue briefly is this: Tn t-VIeW of the gigantic combination of
 capital for Self-Protection have work
 ingmen any right to band together also
 for the same purpose? or can q walk
 ing delegate of a labor organiZa ton
 command the men of his trade to stop
 work when he deems such q measure is necessary for their own protection?
 Judge Rradstreet has consented to preside. Yesterday he thought he would not be able to do so