The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-04-11


 Moves, yesterday reversed the judg- ment, in the famous Danbury matters case, for $232,240, obtained by D. E. Loewe & O., the Danbury matters, against the United Hatters of North America and others, in the Federal Court in Connecticut.
 The action, which was for damages under the Sherman Antitrust act, came before the Circuit Court on a writ of error to review the judgment of the lower court. The verdict upon which the judgment was entered was practically directed by the court, who left to the jury merely the matter of damages, as the ''only question with which they could properly concern damages at s74,000, which amount, in accordance with the conspiracy provis- ion of the Sherman law, the court trebled
 Setting aside the judgment, the Cir cult Court of Appeals finds the lower court erred in directing the verdict and as there will be new trial, the higher court takes occasion to express it's opinion as to the admissibility of certain evidence when the case comes up again.
 COURT REVIEWS CASE.
 Judge Lacombe in the opinion says:
 "Of the facts, conceded by demurrer, which were relied upon in the former decision, the following are fully proved by competent evidence in the record now before us. Plaintiffs were manu- lecturers of hats in Danbury, Conn.,, and had an interstate trade with GUS toners in different States, which was very much the larger percentage Of their business. The combination Of individuals known as the United Hat ters of North America, numbering several thousand members, were com bined with other labor unions in an- other association known as the Amer ican Federation of Labor, numbering more than a million members. scatter ed all over the United States. The United Hatters undertook to unioniZe the different factories in which their members worked. In some instances the owners thereof at first refused to unionize their factories. Thereupon the United Hatters declared a union war against them, and missionaries, purporting to represent the combina- tion, visited customers of such recalci- trant owners in different States and told them that unless they ceased to handle such goods the affiliated unions would refrain from patronizing them. As a result thereof some of those who had at first refused yielded and union- ized their factories.
 HATTERS' STRIKE BEGUN.
 Plaintiffs were interviewed by some officers and members of the Hatters' Union and after some discussion as to the advantages and disadvantages Of unionizing their factory refused to do so. Thereupon a strike was called which took all the union men out of the plaintiffs factory. Subsequently 1,n inno ranrnSQntinU fhan1- selves as coming on behalf of the United Hatters, visited customers of plaintiffs in other States. To some of these customers they stated that unless they would cancel any orders they had given for plaintiffs goods and would agree to discontinue buying goods from plaintiffs in the future their (the customersO factories would be tied up, and the men called out. To others they stated that if they con- tinued business with the plaintiffs they (the missionaries) would call on their own customers, and endeavor to prevent their using their goods, i. e., the goods offered for sale by the per- sons interviewed. To others they stated that unless they ceased to deal in plaintiffs goods they would be boy cotted', or would be put on the unfair list. Some of the customers of plain tiffs who were thus interviewed ceased to make IUTIuoT puTCHdScS ol ALOCWS hats because of these statements made to them at these interviews"
 SHERMAN LAW VIOLATED.
 Judge Lacombe says that Tit is need- less to inquire whether boycotts gen. orally. or this particular variety Of boycott. are or are not unlawful under the statutes of some particular State", but declares that if it is shown that individuals combined to induce man. ufacturer engaged in interstate com merce to conduct his business as they wish it should be, such obstruction is a violation of the Sherman antitrust law.
 "When such obstruction" he con- tinues. ..is shown to have brought about an injury to a persons business, recovery may be had, although the im- polling motive of the combination was an effort to better the condition of the combine. which except for the Anti Trust act might be proper and law full"
 Discussing the points raised on ap- peal. Judge Lacombe, among other things, said:
 ''The first assignment of error which challenges attention on this appeal and which is discussed at the outset of defendant's brief is the action of the trial Judge in taking the case from the jury and himself deciding every question. except the amount of dam ages. Defendants contend that in so doing the trial court assumed the function of the jury in passing upon the credibility of witnesses and weigh ing the conflicting testimony. We think this assignment of error is well taken for several reasons.
 DISAGREES ON ANOTHER POINT.
 "It has been argued here that the mere fact that any individual defend ant was a member of and contributed money to the treasury of the United Hatters' Association made him principal of any and all agents who might be employed by its officers in out the objects of the asso- citation, and responsible as principals if such agents used illegal methods or caused illegal methods to be used in undertaking to carry out those ob- jects.
 "We cannot assent to this proposi- | tion. The clause of the constitution l of. the United Hatters which provides that certain of it's officers shall use all | the means in their power to bring such | shops G e., non-union shops) into the | trade does not necessarily imply that | these officers shall use other than l lawful means to accomplish such ob- l jects Surely the fact that an indi- | vidual who joins an association hav- l ing such a clause in it's constitution | cannot be taken as expressing assent l by him to the perpetration of arson or | Something more must be | shown, as, for instance. that with the | ~f f1,A J,r,1 -frrIl