Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1912-10-17
Verdict Of $4,000 and Costs for
Boycotting Returned in Fa-
nous Loewe Suit.
SHERMAN LAT TRBBLES IT
Vermont Judge in Charge to Jury
Points Out Plot Must Be
Proved in Other
States.

Hartford, Conn, Oct. 1l.--A 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 America in the United
states district court tonight. Under tina
Sherman antitrust law, this will be
trebled, making the total amount $24O,0Oo
II took the jury four hours to reach
the decision. most Of the time being spent
In examining tho expense account Of the
pia'ntins' The verdict Is for the full
amount asked for by the plaintiffs. The
present trial began August a.
This already famous case has been be-
fore the court for nine years, during
which time 1T has gone to the United
states court OF appeals twice and oncs
10 the United States Supreme Court In
the first jury trial three years ago. the
award for the plaintiff was sc2o,ono
Steps were begun tonight by tina de.
Tense to appeal the case again.
Suit was nrst brought in 100.
against 24o members Of the United
Hatters Of North America residins in
this State, and was based upon the
ailegation that a conspiracy existed
to inJure the business OF the plaintiff
cause he declined to unionize his fac
tory. During both trials evidence was
presented aiming to show that certain
labor unions had instituted a boycott
against the plaintiffs business
Soon after the suit was brought the
American Federation Of Labor decld-
ed to stand behind the defendants and
to reimburse them against any loss
The Anti Boycott society Of America
was behind the plaintiffs so the Iit'-
cation 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 defense
They all testified that no boycott had
been declared against the plaintiffs
products.
In his charge OF the jury this after
noon. Judge James l.. Martin of Yer
mont said that the action was based on
the antitrust law or Sherman law ex.
tracts from which ne read. He pointed
ont that it was the allegation relating
to interference with the plaintiffs in
terstate trade and commerce rights that
gave the federal court jurisdiction. lie
said
Many of these defendants have aon.
upon the stand and testified that they
had no knowledge that the officers and
agents of the labor union to which they
belonged had been. or were to become
members of n conspiracy to interfere
with the interstate trade and commerce.
OF the plaintiffs That these unions.
local. State and national. whatever you
may call them, are voluntary associa-
tons is not denied; that the authority
for whatever the officers or agents may
do Is vested In the individual members
thereof. is also undisputed.
THE minutes, resolutions. reports.
proclamations and printed discussions
which the officers and agents Of the as
sociation have publicly proclaimed and
circulated among the membership. are
all matters to be considered by you in
passing upon the question as to whether
or not the boycotting of the plaintiff
trade in other States than Connecticut
was approved or warranted by the indi-
vidual members Of the association"
The Judge told the jury that II 1t
found the plot was to boycott the plain
tiffs' trade with parties In other States
IN order to unionize their factory and such
boycotting was in fact resorted to. then
the plaintiffs are entitled to recover all
such damages as they suffered by the ex-
ecution Of that plot.