New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-10-12
OANBURY HATTERS WIN
VERDICT AGAINST UNION
Jury Gives Company S8O,0OO,
Which Sherman Law In
creaseS to $240, 0O0.
NINE YEARS IN COURTS
Boycott, Backed by Powerful
Labor Organization, Fought
as an Anti Trust
Violation.

Hartford, Conn.,, Oct. ia verdict
for $4,000 and costs was awarded for
the plaintiffs, D. f. Loewe & Co., OF
Danbury. against members Of the
United Hatters' Union of North Amer
lea, in the United States District Court
tonight. Under the Sherman anti
trust law this award will be trebled'
making the total amount S24OOOO.
1t took the jury four hours to reach
the decision, most of the time being
spent in examining the expense ac-
count of the plaintiffs. The verdict
is for the full amount demanded.
This famous case has been before
the courts for nine years. during which
time 1t has gone to the United States
Court Of Appeals twice and once 70
the United States Supreme Court. In
the first jury trial, three years ago.
the award for the plaintiffs was $22,-
oOO.
Steps were begun tonight by the
defence to appeal the case again.
Suit was first brought in 1902 against
240 members Of the United Hatters OF
North America living in this state, and
was based upon the allegation that
conspiracy existed to injure the bust
ness of the plaintiffs, who are soft nat
manufacturers, because they declined
to unionize their factory. During both
trials evidence was presented aiming
to show that certain labor unions mad
instituted a boycott against the plain
tins business.
Soon after the suit was brought the
American Federation of Labor decided
TO stand behind the defendants and to
reimburse them against any loss. The
Anti-Boycott Society of America was
behind the plaintiffs, so the litigation
developed into a legal battle between
these two bodies.
During the recent trial President
Samuel Gompers of the Federation OF
Labor. John Mitchell, Frank Morrison
and other noted labor leaders were
called as witnesses by the defence
They all testified that no boycott had
been declared against the plalntlHs
products.
In his charge to the jury this AFTER
noon Judge James L. Martin, OF YER
mont said that the action was based
upon the antitrust law, or Sherman
law. extracts from which he read. he
pointed out that it was the allegation
relating to interference with the PLAIN
tiffs' interstate trade and commerce
rights that gave the federal court
jurisdiction. He said:
Many of these defendants have gone
upon the stand and testified that 'hey
had no knowledge that the officers anu
agents of the labor union TO whlch
they belonged had been or were 10 pc
come members of a conspiracy 20 IN
terfere with the interstate trade ana
commerce for the plaintiffs. That these
unions, local, state and national. what
ever you may call them, are voluntary
associations Is not denied; that the
authority for whatever the oihcers CT
agents may do is vested in the lndl-
vidual members thereof is also undis-
puted.
The minutes, resolutions, reports,
proclamations and printed discussions
which the officers and agents OF the
association have publicly proclaimed
and circulated among the membership
are all matters to be considered by you
in passing upon the question @s u
whether or not the boycotting OF the
plaintiffs trade in other states than
Connecticut was approved or warranted
by the individual members Of the assoc
citation.
The Judge told the jury that II 1t
found the plot was to boycott the
plaintiffs trade with parties in other
states in order to unionize their fac
tory. and such boycotting was In fact
resorted to, then the plaintiffs are en-
titled to recover all such damages as
they suffered by the execution of that