Norwich bulletin., 1912-10-12

for the full amount asked for by the plaintiffs, and Is $1S,000 more than was awarded in the first trial.
 This already famous case has been before the court for nine years, during which tlne il has gone to the United States court of appeals twice. and once to the United States supreme court.
 First Award Was $222,ooo.
 In the first jury trial. three years ago, the award for the plaintiff was $222, 900.
 Sters were begun tonight by the de- fense to appeal the case.
 Suit was first brought in 1902 against 24) members of the United Hatters of North America residing in this state, and was based upon the allegation that conspiracy existed to injure the bus mess of the plaintiff because he de- clined to unionize his factory. During both trials evidence was presented aiming to show that certain labor un- ions had instituted boycott against the plaintiffs business The bank &C., counts and real estate of the defend ants was attached.
 Backed by the A. F. of L. Soon after the suit was brought the American Federation of Labor decided to stand behind the defendants and to reimburse them against loss. The Anti Boycott Society of America was behind~ the plaintiffs, so the litigation developed into a legal battle between these two powerful bodies. During the recent trial President l Samuel Gompers of the American Fed eration of Labor. John Mitchell, Frank l Morrison and other noted labor lead CTS were called as witnesses by the | defense. They all testified that no boycott had been declared against the 1 plaintiffs products.
 Judges Charge to Jury. 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 l pointed out that it was the allegation relating to interference with the plain | tiffs interstate trade and commerce 1 that gave the federal court juTisdic. ] tion.
 1 He said: Many of these defend ants have gone upon the stand and | testified that they had no knowledge that the officers and agents of the la- Dor union to whic hthey belonged haG been or were to become members of 2 conspiracy to interfere with the inter state trade and commerce of the plain tiffs. That these unions, local, state and national whatever yOIf may cal them, are voluntary associations is no denied: that the authority, for what ever the officers or agents may do is vested in the individual member: | thereof, is also undisputed
 Boycottine of Plaintiffs Trade.
 ''The minutes, resolutions, reports proclamations and printed discussions which the officers and agents of the association have publicly proclaimed and circulated among the member ship, are all matters to be considered 1 by you in passing upon the question as to whether or not the boycotting ot the plaintiffs trade in other state: than Connecticut was approved ol warranted by the individual member, of the association"
 The judge told the jury that if i found the plot was to boycott tht plaintiffs trade with parties in othel states. in order to unionize their fac. tory, and such boycotting was in fac resorted to. then the plaintiff is eni- tied to recover all such damages as h. suffered by the execution of~ tha plot"
 and has been in progress ever since.