Plentywood herald. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1908-current, 1927-09-23

Ii III tlSt pass tlllS ldWs IL " " kOllR l. " hccp
a woman working all the time more than eight
hours a day, she is going to finally wear out. 1t
may be true women would like to work longer hours
and make more pay but the men that have occasion
to hire women should pay them enough so they
don't have to work more than eight hours and it
seems to me under the evidence presented in this
case, the only verdict you can bring in is a verdict
of Guilty.
MR.. BABCOCK: May it please the Court, and
Gentlemen of the Jury. The complaint filed in this
case and upon which you must return a verdict of
guilty or not guilty is fled-mad by Rodney Sails
bury and reads as follows, after the title of the
case: Personally appeared before me on this day
Rodney Salisbury, who being first duly sworn, COM
plains and says: That one Jim Popescu did, on or
about the 18th day of August, 1927, at Sheridan
County, in the State of Montana commit the crime
of working females in a restaurant more than eight
hours at any one day, in that he did then and there,
wilfully, knowingly and wrongfuly, work females
in the Elgin Cafe at Plentywood, Mont, more than
eight hours on said day, all of which is contrary to
the form, force and effect of the statute in such
case made and provided, and against the peace and
dignity of the State of Montana"
Now, under this complaint, the State, in order
to make out a case, must prove that Jim Popescu
did, on the 18th day of August, 1927, work females
in the Elgin Cafe more than eight hours. Now,
gentlemen, what evidence is there before you,
brought out here, that on the l8day day of August,
1927, jim Popescu worked females in the Elgin Cafe
more than eight hours? There is no evidence here
he worked any fes2ale on that day more than eight
hours, to say nothing about working females. There
is no evidence he worked any female more than
eight hours and in order for the State to make out
a case they got to show by competent evidence here
by witnesses sworn and ~testifying on the witness
stand, that he worked females, that is more than
one female more than eight hours.
The County Attorney says they are relying on
the testimony of Mrs. Gunderson that she worked
more than eight hours some of the times. Is there
any testimony she worked more than eight hours
on the 18th day of August of this year? Absolute
ly none. Is there any testimony that Jim Popescu
ever at any time, asked her or employed her to
work more than eight hours on that day or any
other day? There is none. Her own testimony is
she was supposed to work eight hours a day and
some days she might have put in a little extra time.
Sometimes she took it easy she says and worked
for perhaps more than eight hours, but she wasn't
required to. Now, in order to convict the defen-
dant in this case, he must have employed those peo-
pie and made an agreement with them they were
going to work more than eight hours a day, and you
haven't any testimony of that kind. You haven't
any testimony to support a verdict of guilty in this
case. Why didn't Rodney Salisbury take the stand?
He was here in the courtroom. He makes an affl-
davit that Jim Popescu employed women to work
more than eight hours a day on the 18th day of
August this year. What does he know about it?
They didn't even call him as a witness. Why! Be-
cause he did not know that Jim Popescu ever en-
ploved a woman to work IN that cafe more IMAM
eight hours, of course.
They called all the girls that worked in the cafe
this summer, and a boy that worked there three
wears ago. as witnesses, but they haven't brought
ANYBODY in court that that testified to the material
facts alleged in the information or complaint, and
that is that on the 18th day of August, he worked
females in that restaurant more than eight hours,
which they got to prove in order for you to return
a verdict of guilty. / thing the testimony here,
gentlemen, satisfies you without any question that
Jim Popescu has not been employing women to work
in his restaurant more than the required time. he
has been very fair. He gives them eight hours
work. He changes around every day so they have
certain hours off each day go they can do their work
and have three of them on hand at the busy hour
at night and not any one of them worked over eight
hours in any day, and out of those eight hours they
had their time off to eat their meals: visit II they
wanted to-. Why gentlement, it's a joke. This case
is a joke. / don't know what we are taking up the
Courts time for. | don't know why am taking up
your time arguing a joke and that is all this case
is. An absolute joke and nothing but.
Furthermore, gentlement, there is no evidence
that jim .Popescu the defendant here, operates the
Elgin Cafe. You would have to go outside of the
evidence in this case to find that Jim Popescu is
the proprietor Of the Elgin Cafe in the first place,
and you got to find as a matter of fact that he is
the proprietor of the Elgin Cafe; that he is the one
that employed these people; that he is the one
that worked these girls over eight hours, before you
find him guilty. You got to find that on the 18th
day of August this year, before you find him guilty.
AS / say, gentlemen, there isn't a particle of cyl
dence on which you could return a verdict of guilty
in this case and | am not going to take up any more
of your time and | will thank you gentlemen to re-
turn a verdict of Not Guilty in about two minutes.
WHEREUPON, the Jury retired to deliberate
upon their verdict, at which time they returned into