Perth Amboy evening news., 1904-04-20
RESTS
in LABOR CASE.
Closed Their Case Yesterday Afternoon and Counsel
for Defense Asked for a Non-Suit-- Without
Waiting for the Plaintiff to Offer Objections,
Justice Fort Denied the Motion.
SbeciaI to tie Evening NeqOs.


New Brunswick, Apr. 20:-The
Dressler- -Hollander labor union con-
troversy will probably go to the jury
late this afternoon, the plaintiff hav-
ing finished its case yesterday after
noon. and the witnesses for the de-
Tense were sworn this morning.
A motion to non suit the plaintiffs
case was made by Lawyer Strong for
the defense yesterday afternoon on
the ground that the defendants, even
if they had stopped work on the
building the plaintiff was building,
had the right SO to do under the law
of 1888, which legalizes combines Of
persons who agree among themselves
not to work for certain persons. This
was all the defendants had done, he
said. They had not tried to persuade
any one from working or to coeroe
them in any way but simply had
agreed among themselves not to work
for this firm who had the construction
of the building in charge.
Justice Fort denied the motion
without hearing from former Justice
Collins, on the side of the plaintiffs.
He held that even if the court took
the view of the counsel there was still
anothera point involved which was to
the effect that the defendants had
prevented others from taking the con-
tracts for the work. In submitting
the case to the jury he would treat Of
it in all its phases and give the jury
what they were TO determine. This
charge will be of unusual interest to
the labor unions.
Lawyer Strong, in opening the case
for the defense, claimed that they had
done nothing against the law, had no
malice toward the defendants and Ind
the right to visit all work going on in
Perth Amboy under the agre. fnents
existing between the association to
which the plaintiffs belonged and TINT
of the defendants, known as the Perth
Amboy Bricklayers' and Plasterers'
Union.
He also claimed that under the law
the union had the right to boycott
where it would better their interests
and that the law permitted boycott
TOR the advancement of wages and for
any justifiable or reasonable purpose.
lie declared the chief trouble with
the parties at issue was that the union
demanded an apology for the action OF
the plaintiffs in ejeeting one of their
men William Seller, from the pre-
misses where he had trouble with the
masons who went to work before 8
O'Clock and that the plaintiffs insisted
in having in their apology the proviso
that all unions visiting their work
shall notify the firm first. The bill
of damages against the plaintiffs OF
$50, imposed by the defendants, was
not lifted because of this apology be7
ing not forthcoming. The plaintiffs
contend that the union has no right
to impose q fine or to ask an apology.
Witnesses were called yesterday
afternoon to prove that the bill Of
damages was imposed and other con-
tractors notified and that the union
never lifted the fine. The witnesses
called included several members of
the Building and Trade Association to
which the plaintiffs belong, among
them being Peter Peterson, Chris
topher Rasmussen, Carl Christiansen
land j. G. Donahue.