Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-07-11

was not exactly aware Of the order of procedure in contempt proceedings. and that as hls witnesses to the al- legged contemptous acts were unable to understand him, 1t was physical tmpossibility to get afddavits from them in time for court this morning.
 Attorney Kennedy, counsel for the unions stated that the proceedings of yesterday had a cooling effect upon MT Bronson and his clients, and bend ing over the table toward Mfr Kennedy Mir Bronson warned him to be careful of his, Bronson's personal feelings in this matter. There was no cooling ef- feet at least on his side, he said.
 The court said he did not care to take 1t upon himself to instruct or advise Mir Bronson how to proceed. He would let him go ahead himself in his own way. Mir Bronson then said that he would have afIldavits from his witnesses for court to-mor- row morning. But Attorney Ken nedy stated, that while 1t was very serious matter that was charged against Corr and Demarino, and though hc did not know the first thing about it, only he was certain that his clients would not knowingly break the law, still he would forego all formality and allow Mir Bronson to bring his witnesses right into court at his own time. Mir Bronson seemed pleased at this offer and he promised the court he would have his men and no ror.c op hond ot S ,solnal,
 William K. Chatfield Is the com plainant in the contempt proceedings. He charges that on July 9th at g o'clock in the forenoon Demarino lott cred about certain job and by his acts and conduct took measures to in- timidate the plaintiffs workmen. As to Corr, the same plaintiff alleges that he has information to show that Corr on July : and 9 used language. rough and threatening, towards the plain- tif's wOrkmen that was calculated to violate the public peace and intimi- date his workmen.
 Regarding Corr, MT Kennedy stated that he had never been served with copy of the injunction or notified of its existence in any legal way. MT Bronson stated that the officers re- turn showed copy of the injunction had been left at Corr's abode. MT Kennedy answered that Corr has not lived at the place where the paper was left in year and over. MT Bronson contended that Corr must have known of the injunction, but MT Kenendy held that the fact was Corr had not been legally served with Q copy of the document. A search was then made for Sheriff Gill lette, who had the serving of the pa- pers, but he could not be found. MT Bronson still contended that Corr must have known of the injunction. and the court said that while that may be, the question was, was he properly served with the injunction?
 Mir Kennedy then stated that as an injunction was the last resort, it was not only necessary to properly serve 1t. but the defendant should be in- structed as to it's import. In Dana rino's case he did not know what the injunction paper meant. and he sup posed he had perfect right to speak to men about the strike, and he at present believes he has that right. The court stated that ignor- ance may be extenuating circum- stances for violating the injunctive order. but would not vitiate the order.
 MT Bronson said he had witnesses to prove that Corr said he would do certain things in spite of any injunc- tion.
 MT Kennedy replied that Corr has not said or done what was intimated by Mr Bronson. The matter could easily be disposed of. he said, by the court ordering all concerned to obey the injunction until 1t Is modified or dissolved, and MT Bronson could withdraw his charges against Corr and Damarino. The court said that that would be a short cut out of the difficulty if Mir Bronson would agree to 1t.
 Mir Bronson consulted his clients and then said he would withdraw the charges, and he did. They could be revived at any time.
 The court then stated that this in- function must be strictly observed in every particular. no matter what in- dividuals may think of 1t. and any violation will be severely punished, even though 1t may be modified here after. He would not say what the penalties would be. but they would be severe.
 MT Kennedy said that the defend ants being reprimanded. the piaintins should be given to understand that they should not annoy or harass the the defendants. or have them fol lowed by detectives. Yesterday. he said, one of the defendants was abused and called names by one of the plaintiffs. To this the court an swered that he presumed the plain tins would obey the law. They were not in his jurisdiction and he could not order or reprove them. but the defendants are in his Jurisdiction and they had heard what he had said. .l-- -AlnurnaA n fn-n1nrrnK