The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1911-05-19
CASE OF MATTERS
Federal Court Of App2 IS re-
verses Trial Iu5g3.
A NEW TRIAL &c GRANTED.

sponsibiity For Its kets-prief Ills.
tory of the Case
BY the reversal the other day Of the
case against the United HAITI Is union
of Danbury by the United States cir.
cult court of appeals. in which judg'
ment aggregating. with costs S-}2.24O
had been obtained in II lower court on
a charge of boycUtting as defined by
the Sherman antitrust law, 1t appears
that the American Antl-boycott aSsocia
ton has received black eye. While
the issue will be tried again. the decl-
sion is regarded as victory for the
union.
1t Is seven and half years since
the "Danbury hatterS case was
started. A strike was called in the
factory of ID. T.. Loewe & Co. of Dan
bury on July %. 1902, and 240 union
men walked out y boycott. which
eventually extended throughout the
country to the Pacific coast. was de
clared against Loewe hats. and on
Aug. 81, 1903. suit was entered against
Martin Lawlor. secretary of the United
Hatters, and the 240 strikers as indl-
viduals for $4,000 damages.
Various postponements carried the
case along until 1907. when Judge
James p. PIatt of the circuit court at
Hartford and the court of appeals
asked for ruling on the damages
! ., la w
supreme court of the United States
Feb. 8, 1908. this clause was upheld
and Oct 10, 1909. the case was finally
brought to trial.
In the meantime twenty-six of the
original defendants had died. Attach
ments were issued against property
belonging to 100 others. and bank ac-
counts aggregating $4,000 were tied
up in the same way. The American
Federation of Labor. with which the
! United HatterS are affiliated. stood be-
hind the men, while ID. e. Loewe q Co.
were supported by the American Anti
boycott association.
/ The trial at Hartford lasted four
months 1t took the jury only three
hours and twenty minutes to return
its verdict for $T4.0O0. for in the charge
to 1t Judge Plat said:
"1f the essential elements of such
! (boycott plan and the means EN-
/ Dloyed to make the plan success
have been clearly established by the
evidence. that ought to be all that Is
1 required tO pntit!p the plaintiffs to
prevail. Having given YOU my posi-
! tive convictions ni"l; II large part OF
! the case. must H. upon you that
! it is your positive u IS 80 accept them
as Il law in tins casr that the defend
ants now remaining un the records of
! this court are parties to rumb!na
ton which mas been found by the SUI
Dreme court to form II valid basis fol
this suit.
"1he only question, therefore with
which you can property concern your
selves is the matter Of damages.
1t was upon this charge that the or
der for new trial was based by the
! United States circuit court OF appeals.
Two days after the verdict in Hart
!
mined to appeal from the Judgment
! On April -. 1910. they gave bond for
$2iO.OG0 and filed their exceptions.
| The opinion of the higher court. writ
ten by Judge l.acumbe and concurred
! in by Judges Coke and NoyeS, com
mpntS on the exceptions MS follows:
THE first assignment of error which
challenges attention in this appeal is
the action of the trial judge III taking
the case from the jury and himself
deciding every question except the
amount of damages. The defendants
contend that in so doing the trial court
assumed the function of the jury in
passing upon the credibility of wit
nesses and weighing the conflicting
testimony We think this assignment
of error is well taken"
! In conclusion Judge Lacombe says:
"Since there is to he IA new trial it is
desirable that the opinion of this court
should be expressed ON two questions
as to the admisSibility of evidence
which shall probably arise again. The
court admitted evidence of the pay
ment of their dues To the union by de-
| PENDANTS after complaint was served.
/ This was not competent as showing
ratification, and. aS we understand
their brief. plaintiffs do not so con
tend 1t was offered as tending to
show that the acts tof the mission
ariesI were authorized at the time they
were performed previous to their suit.
upon the theory that otherwise the
disclosures made to AN individual de-
PENDANT by his reading of the com
plant would have brought forth pro-
test and disapprovaI on his part. We
think il should have been excluded"
The court also holds that much OF
the evidence as tn the missionary
work" admitted at the first trial was
hearsay and AT the next 1t should be
got at first hand.
President Samuel Gompers of the
American Federation of Labor takes
an optimistic view of the reversal and
the effect il will have throughout the