Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1915-12-17
JUDGE RESERVES
HIS DECISION IN
LABOR LAW CASE
P. Sanford Ross Co. First to Be
Proceeded Against Under
Federal Act.

Decision was reserved by Judge
Thomas G. Height in the Newark
branch OF the United States District
Court today on motion TO dismiss a
proceeding instituted by the govern
ment against P. Sanford Ross, incor-
porated, contractor, to test the limita-
tions of the Federal eight-hour work.
ing law.
The law prohibits mechanics ard
laborers engaged in work for the gov
ernment to work more than eight
hours day. Judge Haight adjourned
the case until Tuesday. when he will
announce his decision on the motion
made by counsel for the defendant to
direct a verdict of acquittal. The case
is being tried before jury.
The defendant firm, which does a
general contracting business. has its
office at 277 Washington street, Jer-
sey City. P. Sanford Ross, its head
lives at Is johnson avenue, this city,
In the spring of last year. the firm
had a contract for dredging work in
Staten Island sound. near Elizabeth,
and the government charges seven
ItCfi 9lOidIAOiS Vi Liz iclWs
that men engaged in the work there
worked more than eight hours per
! day.
The case is said to be the second
one ever tried IN the Federal courts
throughout the country since the
eight-hour law was enacted in 1882,
1t Is regarded as. test case. having
been instituted by the government,
In order to get judicial ruling Of the
law, as amended in March. 1913. The
present case issthe first that has beer
tried anywhere in the country since
the amendment was passed. The
outcome will. therefore. be regarded
with interest by government officials
throughout the country.
Only one witness was. called by the
government, and the defense rested
its case without calling any witnesses.
Horace Kipie, a government engi-
neering inspector, was the witness.
He testified as to the character of the
work done by the seventeen men
named in the several indictments
brought against the defendant Cor
poration. He was minutely cross
examined by Robert II. McCarter,
counsel for the defendant.
Following the cross-examination,
Mr.. McCarter moved for direction
of a verdict in favor of the defendant.
After Assistant District Attorney Jo-
seph Bodine, who is prosecuting the
case for the government, had made
answer to the motion, Judge Haight
announced that he would reserve de-
cision until Tuesday morning.
Claims for Non-suit.
Mr.. Mccarter based his claim for a
non-suit on clause in the act as
amended in 1913. The clause provides
that no one who was not directly
operating dredging or rock excavatine
machinery or tools was subject to
the act. He contended that none OF
the men mentioned in the indictments
actually operated any of the machin-
liery or tools in connection with the
work. Some of the men. he asserted,
were engaged in oiling the machinery
and doing other work not subject te
the provisions Of the act Mr.. Bodine
admitted that some of the men men,
, toned In the indictment were exempt
but maintained that certain others
assisted in operating the machinery
on a, dredging vessel and were subject
to the law.
.aThe government has brought this
case Mr.. Bodine declared, mot be-
cause it has any particular grievance
against p. Sanford Ross. Inc. but be-
cause we feel that it is very important
that we have some court construction
of the 1918 law. The limitations of the
law have never been judicially de-
| fined"
But one prosecution was brought
under the original act of 1892 A con-
viction in that case was set aside by
the Supreme Court on the ground thai
the men working on the dredging YES
sci in question were in the eyes oi
the law seanen, and not subject K
the act. The 1913 amendment did moi
materially affect this phase of tn.
case. Mr.. McCarter declared. 1t did
however, exclude those men who were
not directing machinery or tools II
dredging work.
Judge Haight said he did not wan
| to pass on Mr.. McCarter's motion
until he had determined fully whethel
the government could appeal the cas-
! in the event that he did direct a yer
dict of acquittal.
''I know that the defendant has tn
right of appeal, but am not certain
that the government has the sam'
preorgative," Judge Haight declared
He further stated that he wished t
have some time to consider the point
raised by counsel, and also to stud,
| the language of the laws governing
the case. He then adjourned the cas-
until Tuesday morning at 10 O'Clock.
Il