New Britain herald., 1922-07-29
Lawyers on Case.

Lawyers on Case.
 The New Haven road was repre-. sented by George D. Watrous. C. M. Sheafe, Jr and Norman Buckingham. the last two mentioned being of the II legal staff Of the company. The men who had been enjoined were repre- sented by c. J. Danaher of Meriden and Arthur O'Keefe of West Haven. Strikers Arguments.
 The hearing opened at II o'clock. Mir. Danaher at once asked for dis missal of the entire proceedings on the ground of lack of Jurisdiction. He then filed a motion giving specifically the reasons for it. Mir. Danaher said that the subjoenas issued bore tho date of July 20 while the restraining order was dated July 19. The former called the men to appear in court on the 18th and Mir. Danaher claimed that for this reason they were. with out effect in law. He claimed that any subsequent proceedings under the restraining order were illegal. MT. Danaher cited cases to support his contentious. He also maintained that
  under the conditions he had cited un- less it was shown that great and ir- reparable damage had been done which was not the case. He also claimed that the restraining order had taken rights from citizens without due process of law He further said that the name of each defendant should have been in a separate writ which was not the case and there- fore the restraining order was with out effect in law.
 Allegations Not Verified.
 Tn concluding his argument Mir. Danaher said that the allegations of the company Of wrongdoing intimtdA- tion and coercion had not been prop erly verified; that the original corn- plaint had been signed by E. J. Pear son as president of the N. r., N. H. and H. railroad and that MT. Pearson said that he believed these things to be true" whereas they were based on reports submitted to him by men on the system. MT. Dana.her said that his simple statement of belief was not sufficient on which to base the re- straining order.
 Mir. Danaher took up the picketing angle saying that the restraining or- der had prevented the strikers from picketing and claimed that in view os this the court has over stepped its au- thority and had placed the matter of a restraining order outside its jurisdic- ion.
 Replies For Company.
 Mir. Sheafe, for the company, re- piled to Mir. Danaher and said at the outset that the date 18th in the sub. ooenas was clerks error that the late should have been the 2sth as he restraining order of the 2oth set orth that the hearing on the matter ,f temporary injunction was to De ,n that date. Mir. Sheafe said that he argument and claim of Mir. Dan- lher were highly technical and fu- ile"
 He said the New Haven road was anxious to proceed with the hearing and that it paid no attention to clerks" typographical error.
 As to Mir. Danaher's claim that 'hearsay" was the basis of the com
  "a hundred cases of assault, intini- dalton and coercion on men actually at work"
 First Order On July f9.
 The New Haven road secured a re- straining order from Judge Thomas on July 1a Subpoenas against 52 in- iividuals were issued on the goth, them 10 court on July 19. The date should have read the 29th. Mr. Sheafe claimed it was merely court clerks typographical error' md that the New Haven road desired O proceed with the case on its own merits and not to delay because of lerical errors. The hour of the fling If the original writ also was missing .lthough it should have appeared &C., ording to the provisions of the Clay on act.
 Judge Thomas in his decision, how yer, pointed out that the question of he jurisdiction of the court was of uch vital importance in all subse- uent proceedings that he was averse o disregarding the technical errors. Tor that reason he said he would rant the application to dismiss the ase
 Imong those served with the original ubpoena were B. M. Jewell, head of he shopmen; heads of several other and officers of crafts which are represented among the trikins shopmen on the New Haven Ntem.