The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-08-20
DUCKING CASE
BEFORE COURTS
LABOR SOLICITOR SUIT
AGAINST LANCASTER MILLS.
verdict for $500 Given-Points of In
terest to Those Who Study Deci-
sions in Cotton Mill
Gases.
The State.

The supreme court, in affirming a
decision Of the circuit court, has de-
clded to award James II. Fields $500
for ducking he received in a mill
reservoir in Lancaster, where he had
gone to solicit labor for cotton mill
IN Fairfield county. The case is a
most interesting one and synopsis
Of the case will be read with interest
by those interested in labor conditions
IN the cotton mills. 1t follows:
On August II, 1905, ,he plaintiff,
James II. Fields, went from Winns
boro to Lancaster for the purpose of
hlrlng hands, then in the employ Of
inc Lancaster cotton mills, for the
Fairfield mills. The coming of outsid-
ers on the mill property and inducing
hands to leave was serious grievance
to the Lancaster mills and the super
lntendent had instructed the over
seers to prevent it by warning such
persons not to come on the property
and II the warning was not needed to
nave them arrested by an officer.
The oversecrs went to the DEPOT
and met Fields. After a friendly
greeting Fields walked with the sun
crlntrndcnt and ovcrsccrs towards the
mill settlement, saying to them false
~ that he had no idea Of hiring hands
and had come over "thc see his
glr'.' When they reached the mill
property some of the party seized and
tied Fields and threw him into the
mill reservoir and kept him there for
minute or two
Tie plaintiff sued the Lancaster
cotton mills and Skipper, The super
lnttndcnt, for &25, 900 damages, allc~-
IN" the lndiynty to have been mali
r1"usIv inflicted upon him in pur-
Snancc Of prcconcertcd plan. Ho
received a verdict for $500 against
tn" Lancaster cotton mills alone.
Ground for Appeal.
The defendant insists the circuit
court was in error in refusing TO
grant a nnn-suit and s,.hscuucntly re-
1nSln= to order new trial on the
ground that there was no evidence Of
participation Of the defendant in the
tori. 1t was alleged tAat The duckine
OF the plaintiff was the result of his
having drawn knife on one of the
ovcrSecrS and all the ovcrsccrs SUD-
ported Superintendent Skipper in his
statement that he had nothing TO do
with The assault. Skipper admitted
tdat some years before he had thrown
INTO the water another man who had
troubled him in Il similar way
had troubled him in similar way
and tLat on this this occasion he stood
by and saw the plaintiff carried to
the reservoir, but did not think the
others intended to carry out the
threat. The court holds that the is
sues OF participation by the supcrin-
tendcm and the motive of the assault
were for the decision Of the jury. The
superintendent Of a cotton mill is
usually he mills representative,
with respect to hiring and managing
operatives and the evidence shows
That IN this instance he was entrusted
with the control Of its policy. The
Lancaster cotton mills. therefore, can
not escap" ih' liability for any action
taken by him with respect To the mat
ters II had placed under his control.
II makes no difference that the ac-
tion was unlawful.
What Court Holds.
Ihr supreme court holds that there !
was II" error in rtiuSin" the motion !
for non-Suil AMI for Il new trial. !
The verdict was in this form: "We |
find for the plaintiff $500 against thc !
Lancaster cotton mills for punitive |
damages. The defendant contend |
ed that this verdict was illegal he
cause It's language excludes the idea
OF actual damages and that there can
be no recovery for punitive damages
without actual damages. Since this
exception was taken the point has
been settled contrary to the defend
ant 5 view by the case Of Dostcr VS..
Telegraph company II s. c. Sc. The
Judgment of the court is affirmed and
the verdict Of $500 stands.