Evening journal., 1917-01-30
JUDGE DISNISSES
THE STRIKE PICKETS
Rules That State Failed to
Prove Men Had
Violated Law
PROMISES FINES
FOR LAWBREAKERS

iand. alleged strike pickets, charged
with disorderly conduct on several
counts, at the plant OF the American
vugvanized Fibre Company, were dis
missed by Judge Churchman in City
Court yesterday J. Frank Ball.
counsel for the defendants. who was
unable to appear, was represented by |
James Salisbury. The cases were dis
missed for want OF proof to support |
the charges alleged In the informa- |
tion.
The Judges decision against An
drick. which also applies to Whittland, !
follows:
"phe accused is charged with dis
orderly conduct on a public street, in
violation OF the ordinance Of coun-
ell.
The information contains nine
counts. The first three counts, upon
objection raised by the defendant,
we're rejected for want Of proper form.
The other counts charge that the
defendant acted in a disorderly man
uer. In the fourth, by uttering sour
rlously, 'scab shop, why do YOU take
another mans iob?' in the fifth. by
uttering profane words, to wit Go
20 h--l,' in the sixth, by following
and annoying one George Russo; in
the seventh, by following and annoy
ing one Warren Russo, in the eighth,
by following and annoying James
Rainey' and in the ninth, by utterlng
prOfane words, to wit; To HI win
YOUR orders.
THE ordinance (Chart p. 1922 so
Gar as It concerns disorderly conduct
on the public streets, reads as fol-
lows,
whoever shall in any street in
this city be guilty OF any
indecent or disorderly conduct, or
make any offensive outcries, or
loud noises, or utter, act or sing
any lewd, scurrilous, profane or
obscene words or songs;
shall be deemed guilty of com
mon nuisance
"The city produced sixteen wit
nesses to support the above allega-
tions The evidence was taken down
in writing by me when given from the
witness stand
It find nothing in the evidence Of
the witnesses to support the allegation
in the fourth count. The evidence OF
all the witnesses is that the defend
ant. with another man, for from five
to ten minutes every evening, and
sometimes at the noon hour, frequent
~. il not daily, either stood or walked
upon the street using the expression
quoted, sometimes in a low, ordinary
tone Of voice, at other times loudly
but did not direct the remarks to any
individual, merely used the words
with a change of voice as person
would do in using any other expires
sion, which he desired persons e
hear. while either standing or walk
ing upon the street. There was nc
proof that the manner Of the two mer
was other than orderly. or that any
thing could be taken from the mannel
used in speaking. The charge is ut
tering scurriously the words quoted
speaking or using the words II
q scurrilous manner. 1t is Impossible
IN conclude or even 10 infer that thil
defendant uttered scurrilously' IN
words above quoted, merely by usihl
the words in the amnner above stated
1T find nothing in the evidence L
support the allegations in the hfti
and ninth counts. The evidence o
two NJ the sixteen witnesses disclose
that the profane words used wer'
NOT the words charged in the tw,
counts but other profane words, VIII
entirely different meanings. The CIT
must prove the profane words !
CHARGES the defendant win using.
"a bound by its own allegations.
There is nothing in the evidence
support the allegations IN the sNJ
seventh and eight counts Of 'tollowf
and annoying the persons named. Oi
of the men named in the intounatie
said that he was not annoyed ana Z"
other man. whom the defendant
charged with annoying, says he was a.
moved bv the defendant standing I'm
foilowinol at or near his car (aut
nobilel and using the words quoted
the information, there was no eviden
nroduoed to show that the detenda'
both followed and annoyed any pc
son. There was some evidence Of a
novance But the charge is alleged
the conjunctive, not In the dslmctr
IN was necessary for the city to pro
the charge as It alleged it of bo
following and also annoying the p'
sons named. The defendant merely sto
or walked up and down the street Vic
can he be said to have followed any pa
tic,rlar person when many persons We
at the same time leaving their pla
Of employment!
Ine ordinance u OuuueA NuuN
above was adopted many years befo
the use OF the present methods OF &c
ducting labor disputes. Whether {
ordinance as 1t exists today emorac
The acts done or words used by G.
tain persons concerned in labor d
putes / do not express an opinio
but il any person either interested
abor affairs or otherwise in this ci
while either standing or walking
public street, or In any other p'
lie place either (a) is indecent,
lb) disorderly, OF (c) makes any
fensive outcries, or (d) makes a
loud noises, or (e) utters any le
words, or (f) utters any profa
words, or (g) utters obscene wor
such. person violates the City On
nance; and If proof thereof is Civ
beyond a reasonable doubt. uni
proper pleadings, such person will
fined in accordance with the Ol
nance.
"The defendant in this case must
discharged and the case dismiss
for want of any proof to support
charges alleged in the information.
ETHICAL CULTURE LECTURE
DIR Henry Neuman addressed