Perth Amboy evening news., 1923-08-22
is FINED SIOO IN STRIKE
ACTION AT SAYREVILLE
tcontlnued from page II

Nystrom, who was in charge of
the strike, was charged with having
declared that the injunction did not
amount to anything" 1t was fur
ther alleged that he also asserted he
had a rig1t to keep a picket at every
entrance to the plant and that II
am going to keen one at every en-
trance"
The court declared that testimony
showed he made these statements,
but not connectedly as alleged.
Nystrom, according to the testi-
mony, in order to keep within the
law, declared to the sheriff of Mid
dlesex county that as he read the
order, so long as the pickets did not
modest the workers, the pickets were
not liable for violating the %injunc-
ton and that the sheriff agreed that
so long as the strikers did not cause
trouble, the men could be kept at
the entrances.
consideration of the testimony
for the prosecution" declared Vice
conclusion that the testimony is,
for the most part, at least, quite
Chancellor Buchanan, "leads to the
compatible with the testimony and
explanation of the defense. L think
the defendant Nystrom must be ac-
quilted of the charge of contempt on
this specification"
That the strikers were trying to
engineer the strike to a successful
conclusion, and still be law-abiding,
and that the latter point, at all
events, vas observed, was evidenced
by the court.
1.-The strikers seem for the most
part to have endeavored to the best
OF their knowledge and understand
ing to be ~law-abiding and refrain
from disobedience to the orders of
this court; and they seem to have
been pretty successful in such en-
deavors, remarkably so, compared
with the situation in most other
strikes that have come under my
judicial notice" said the vice chan
cellor in this connection.
"Kyrenski's violation was by no
means fragrant in intent, nor is
there any evidence that it was of
much Importance in actually: and
it was speedily terminated by Kry-
enski and the others, themselves,
apparently as soon as they realized
that 1t was a violation and a con-
tempt. The punishment in his case
will be a fine of one hundred dol
lars and the costs of the p~rosecu-
ton" the opinion concluded.
The contention of the strikers was
that picketing was not prohibited by
the orders from the court of chan
cerv and that their actions were
therefore not a contempt. They de-
clared the picketing was not done
for the purpose of intimidation but
solely for purposes of observation
to see whether any minors were be-
ing employed at the plant in VIOLA
ton of the law and to ascertain
whether any union men were work
ing at the plant, so that no sick or
death benefits might be paid to these
latter because of the unions igno-
rance Of their employment.
OF the two orders, one of June
Is and the other issued June 26, said
the court, neither prohibits picketing
by itsSif. The first order, according
to the court, prohibited picketing
with intent to modest or annoy work
ers or prospective workers at the
plant and the latter prohibited pick
citing with intent to intimidate work
ers at the ~Sayreville company.
The court declared there was q
reasonable doubt in Its mind
that the defendants were in con-
tempt and that they would be ac-
quilted.