Norwich bulletin., 1911-04-11
United States Circuit Court of Appeals Re-
 verses Judgment of $232, ,240.12
COURT ERRED IN DIRECTING VERDICT
Reversal of Lower Courts Decision Based This Cir cumstance-Case Based on Sherman Ant.Tru Law Involving Claim of Boycott Against the Plaintiff The Issue in Litigation for the Past Eight Years

New York, April 10-The long stand fng controversy between the Danbury tConn.D matters and the union known as the United Hatters of North Amer lea. was brought up again today by d reversal of the judgment for S232.- 24o.12 which I.oewe & Co. of Danbury obtained as damages for the unions s alleged boycott in the hat manufac- turers' interstate business.
 Verdict Was Directed by Court.
 The United States circuit court of appeals took up the case on a writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court in Connecticut. In an opinion written by Judge Lacombe and concurred in by Judges Cox and Moves today. the judgment Is reversed. The verdict upon which the judgment was originally entered was practically di- rected by the court. which left to the jury merely the matter of damages as the ''only question with which they could properly concern themselves" The jury assessed the damages at $74,- 00V. which amount, in accordance with the conspiracy provision of the Sher- man law-the court trebled.
 A New Trial Ordered.
 Setting aside the judgment. the court of appeals finds the lower court erred fin directing the verdict. A new trial was directed.
 Of the facts. conceded by demurrer which were relied upon in the former decision, Judge Lacombe says in his opinion it has been proved that the United Hatters were in association with the American Federation of La bor that the Hatters' union under took to unionize the factories and when the manufacturers refused to al- low this, union war was declared.
 The Plaintiff Held Out.
 'In. some instances the owners at first refused to unionize their facto- ries.' the opinion reads, and mission aries purporting to represent the com- bina ton visited customers of recalci- trant owners in different states and told them that unless they ceased to handle their goods the associated un- ions would refrain from patronizing them. The plaintiff in the case held out.
 Strike at Danbury Factory.
 -Thereupon a strike was called which took all the union men out of plaintiffs factory. Subsequently the missionaries representing themselves ss coming on behalf of the United IIatters. visited customers of plain tifs in other states. To some of these customers they sta ted that unless they would cancel any orders they had giv- en for plaintiffs goods and would agree c. discontinue buying goods from plain fifts in the future their (the customers) factories would be tied up and the men called out.
 Danbury Firn, Lost Patrons.
 ITO others they stated that if they continued business with the plaintiffs they (the missionariesD would call on their own customers and endeaVor to prevent their using their goods, l. e., the goods offered for sale by the per- sons interviewed. To others they stat ed that unless they ceased to deal in plaintiffs goods they would be boy cotted.' or would be put on the un- far list Some of the customers of plaintiffs who were thus interviewed ceased to make further purchases of I.oewe hats because of the statements made to them at these interviews" Mie'it Be Violation of Anti Trust Law
 Tho opinion continues that "it is needless to inquire whether bovCot5s generally or this particular variety If boycott gre or are n1s unlawful or un- Ger the statutes of some particular state" but declares that eff ic is shown ~ af Individuals combined to induce a rsutlfec ecturer engaged in Interstate tnrlrr.rce tO conduct his business as th-y wish it should pc .such 3ostruc- Io7. fs 9 violation of the Sherman nn- u-frust law.
 Erred in Taking Case from Jurf.
 piscussing the points raise1 on ap- peal Judge LacombC saays the assign Ment of error which is upheld. is the action of the trial judge in taking the eaee from the jury and himself de- ciding every question. except the amount of damages Approval of Unlawful Acts Must Be
 Shown.
 Continuing the decision, Judge La eombe says:
 Tt has been argued here that the