The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1904-06-02
TIE PATCH CASE.

| INV Cdsb VI II
r. Patch Mfg. Co. VS.. Protection
Lodge, No. 215, International Associ-
alton of Machinists, from Rutland
county is now before the Supreme
Court for decision as to the numerous
legal questions involved The case
is an action for damages alleged to
have resulted to the plaintiff by rea-
son of actions of the defendant in boy
cotting the plaintiff, intimidating
workmen, etc. the plaintiff is we'll
known Rutland corporation which
manufactures machinery for working
marble and granite. In May, 1902,
the employees of the plaintiff who
were members of Protection Lodge,
demanded fifty four hours for a weeks
work, overtime to be paid for at the
rate of time and one.half. and that
the plaintiff recognize the union and
union principles. The company paid
no attention to the demands and as
result all but nine of the employees
struck. Mr. Patch informed a COM
mittee Of the strikers that he would
not recognize the union as was de.
manded, VIZ, by recognizing shop
committee from the union in adjust
ing all difficulties, and further stated
he could not afford to pay the extra
wages.
The strike went on. The company
tried to hire in non.union men to
take the places of the men who were
out in order to complete the unfn-
ished work in the shops. The plain.
tiff asserts that by reason of "picket.
ing by strikers at the railroad sta
tion AMI about the shops, and by
threats of violence against new men
and of boycotting anybody that had
anything to do with the strike break
ers. the defendant Protection Lodge
greatly damaged the plaintiff. Mat
ters grew lively and some clashes re-
suited. The company secured tenn
porary injunction against various
unions and individuals to prevent
plcketiDg, threats, intimidation, etc. :,
and IN December, 1902, brought this
suit. The case was tried at the March
term of Rutland county court. 1903,
and was sensational to some extent.
1t resulted in verdict for the pain
tiff to recover 50, 800 and costs after
a two weeks trial and after the jury
had been out twenty-five hours. The
defendant brings the case to Supreme
Court on exceptions to various rulings
of Judge Haselton in county court
The defendant excerpts to various
evidence admitted. other evidence
thrown out and also excerpts to certain
portions of Judge Haselton's charge to
the jury. Especially, too, the de-
PENDANT maintains that one of the
jurors who sat on the case was an
unfit man to be ON the jury and was
prejudiced against the defendant as
shown by statements he is alleged to
have made out of court during the
trial of the case. The main ques-
tions are the following: Was Juror
Ingleston's conduct improper and suf-
ticient to have put stop to the trial?
II so, did the defendant waive it's
rights by failing to apply to the court
during the trial when il learned of
the alleged misconduct? Were the
acts which members of the defendant
union are alleged TO have done, such
acts as make up a conspiracy? Was
the charge of the court correct with
reference to the jury's finding about
the defendant failing to produce
books and records when called on by
the court? Affidavits have been filed
with the court by both parties. The
defendants affidavits are to the effect
that Juror Ingleston made sta tements
during the trial that showed him to
be prejudiced against the defendant.
The plaintiffs affidavits are to the
effect that counsel for defendant
knew of Ingleston's statements dur
ing the trial and failed TO call them
to the attention of the court. and
that in fact in the jury room Ingles.
ton was one of those who stood out
for defendant for some hours aud then
argued for verdict for small sum.
j. X. Batohelder made the opening
argument for the defendant, M G.
Webber and o. M. Barber argued fol
the plaintiff, and Thomas H Browne.
closed tor the defendant This ended
the hearings for this term of Supreme
. Court and on Friday a recess wal
r taken until August 20. The com.
{ plant for disbarment in re Rufus r.
Brown was dismissed. The following