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
Cases.
The State.

4uC SuH4CAc SouA y LII cIA44u4AS
decision Of the circuit court, has de.
cided to award James H. Fields $500
for a ducking he received in a mill
reservoir in Lancaster, where he had
gone to solicit labor for a cotton mill
in Fairfield county. The case is a
most interesting one and a synopsis
Of the case will be read with interest
by those interested in labor conditions
in the cotton mills. It follows:
On August 21, 1905, ,he plaintiff,
James Fl. Fields, went from Wins
boro to Lancaster for the purpose Of
hiring hands, then in the employ of
the Lancaster cotton mills, for the
Fairfield mills. The coming of outsid-
ers on the mill property and inducing
hands to leave was a serious grievance
to the Lancaster mills and the super
intendent had instructed the over
seers to prevent it by warning such
persons not to come on the property
and if the warning was not needed to
have them arrested By an officer.
The overseers went to the depot
and met Fields. After a. friendly
greeting Fields walked with the sup
erintendent and overseers towards the
mill settlement, saying to them false
ly that he had no idea Of hiring hands
and had come over "the see his
girl.' 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
a minute or two.
TIE plaintiff sued the Lancaster
cotton mills and Skipper, the super
intendent, for $4,000 damages, alleg-
ing the indignity to have been mali
ciously inflicted upon him in pur-
suance Of preconcerted plan. He
received verdict for $500 against
the Lancaster cotton mills alone.
Ground for Appeal.
The defendant insists the circuit
court was in error in refusing to
grant a non-suit and Subsequently re-
fusing to order a new trial on the
ground that there was no evidence Of
participation Of the defendant in the
tort. It was alleged that the ducking
Of the plaintiff was the result of his
having drawn knife on one Of the
over<eers and all the overseers sup
ported superintendent Skipper in his
statement that he had nothing to do
with the assault. Skipper admitted
taat some years before he had thrown
;nto the water. another man who had
troubled him in a similar way
had troubled him in a 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 superin-
tendent 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 escape the liability for any action
taken by him with respect to the mat
ters it had placed under his control.
It makes no difference that the ac-
ton was unlawful.
What Court Holds.
The supreme court holds that there
was no error in refusing the motion
for a non-suit and for new trial.
The verdict was in this form: "We
find for the plaintiff $500 against the
Lancaster cotton mills for punitive
damages. The defendant contend
ed that this verdict was illegal be-
cause its 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
ants view by the case of Doster VS.,
Telegraph company IT S. c. Sc. The
Judgment Of the court is affirmed and
the verdict Of $500 stands.