Collins v. Haytea1

• Decision Date: 31 January 1869
• Parties: FREDERICK COLLINS et al.v.WILLIAM B. HAYTE.a1
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

50 Ill. 337

1869 WL 5232 (Ill.)

99 Am.Dec. 521

FREDERICK COLLINS et al.

v.WILLIAM B. HAYTE.a1

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1869.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Adams county; the Hon. JOSEPH SIBLEY, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case, brought in the court below, by William B. Hayte, against Frederick Collins, Allen Comstock, Enoch Comstock, Timothy H. Castle and Charles H. Winn, for an alleged malicious prosecution, arrest and imprisonment.

The declaration alleges that on the 2d of July, 1866, the defendants, maliciously and without probable cause, instituted an action on the case against the plaintiff and five others, suing out a capias in said action, and caused bail in the sum of $50,000 to be endorsed thereon by the clerk, and the plaintiff to be arrested on said capias and imprisoned for the space of six hours, until he gave bail on said capias; that the defendants failed to prosecute their suit with effect, and dismissed it at the March term, 1867, making the usual averments as to pain of body and mind, hindrance of business, loss of credit, expenses of defense, &c.

The defendants pleaded not guilty.

The various questions arising in regard to the admissibility of evidence, will best be understood by recurring to the facts out of which the original prosecution against the plaintiff arose. Those facts, as they are alleged to have existed, are presented in the affidavit of one of the defendants, upon which the capias issued in that proceeding, as follows: That on June 27th, 1866, the plaintiffs (in that suit) were, and for four years had been, manufacturing stoves, &c., at a foundry in Quincy, and then had in their employment in said business, a large number of employees, whose names were set forth, working for them under printed and written contracts, of various dates, then having considerable length of time to run, by which contracts the employees were bound to work for plaintiffs and learn the trade of moulding, for certain terms specified in the contracts, the plaintiffs agreeing to cause the employees to be instructed in moulding in the best manner, furnish them employment, and pay them certain specified wages.

That at the time of the alleged enticement of the said employees, these contracts were in full force, and plaintiffs had fully complied with them. Refers to a schedule annexed, as setting forth names of employees, terms of service, rate of wages, unexpired terms of service, estimated average weekly value of each employee's service during his unexpired term, and estimated excess of such value over the wages stipulated in the contracts. That the employees, when they began work, were wholly unskilled in moulding; that they had already acquired considerable skill, and would have continued to improve during their unexpired terms, and the values assigned to their weekly services in the schedule, are an average estimate, founded upon the ordinary and usual progressive increase in skill and efficiency, as shown by experience in like cases; that, estimating the value of their services for the unexpired terms at what they were worth at the time they were enticed away, the aggregate would be at least $25,000 over and above the wages stipulated in the contract.

That on or about the 27th day of June, A. D. 1866, John Keho, Henry B. Carter and Edward Malone, (who had been journeymen in the foundry for a few days prior thereto,) together with Samuel Wood, William B. Hayte and John C. Fisher, (who were not connected with the foundry,) combining and confederating themselves together, of their fraud and malice, to deprive affiant and said Frederick Collins, Allen Comstock, Enoch Comstock and Charles H. Winn, of the services of their said employees, and to injure, break up and destroy their said manufacturing business, did unlawfully, &c., entice, persuade and procure all of said employees in said schedule mentioned (being then and there engaged in the service aforesaid, under the contract aforesaid,) to depart from and out of the said service and employment of the said Frederick Collins, &c., and to wholly abandon said service, by means of which enticement, procurement and persuasion, the said employees, afterwards, and on the 27th day of June, A. D. 1866, unlawfully, &c., and without the assent of said Frederick Collins, &c., departed from and out of their said service and employment, and have ever since remained, and still do remain absent from said service and employment, and have wholly refused to return into their said service and employment, and have wholly abandoned their said contracts, and refuse to be further bound by or to comply with the same, whereby said Frederick Collins, &c., have wholly lost the benefit of said contracts, and of the services of their said employees, and sustained damage to the amount of $25,000, at the lowest computation, and said damage, in the ordinary course of business, would amount to a much larger sum.

That the employees so enticed away, constituted almost the entire force of hands at the foundry, and that the business had thereby become necessarily wholly suspended.

That the business requires the regular service of skilled employees, who are very difficult to obtain without great effort and long space of time, laborers skilled in the trade being scarce in the United States, and particularly in the west; that the business requires a large outlay in buildings, material, &c., which are of little value compared to their cost, except in the continued and regular use of the same; that the expenditure and outlays of plaintiffs have been over $100,000, whereby and by means of said employees the same hath become an extensive business, and profitable, in an amount not less than $200,000 per annum, which, by means of the premises, is destroyed; that said employees have been collected, instructed and prepared for such services with a view to said business and outlay, by great diligence, expense, and long efforts, and for such sole purpose, and that the damage reasonably and necessarily resulting from the stoppage, delay and hindrance of the said business is not less than $25,000.

That said Frederick Collins, &c., are about to commence a suit, and that there is danger that the judgment will be lost unless the parties are held to bail.

A schedule attached to the affidavit, contains the names of 34 employees, their unexpired terms ranging from 34 weeks to 900 days; weekly wages ranging from $5 to $8; the weekly value of their services ranging from $15 to $23; and the excess in value of the unexpired terms, over the stipulated wages, being estimated in the aggregate at $37,640.

A capias was issued upon this affidavit, against Hayte and the other alleged conspirators, upon which bail was endorsed to the amount of $50,000. Hayte was arrested under the capias, and after remaining in jail about two hours he was taken before a Circuit Judge, upon habeas corpus, gave bond for his appearance before the judge the next morning, when, after a hearing, he was again confined in jail about two hours, and then released upon bail of $10,000. This arrest was made in July, 1866. At the October term following, the cause was continued, and at the March term, 1867, it was dismissed by the plaintiffs therein. Those are the proceedings upon which this action for malicious prosecution was brought by Hayte.

On the trial below, the plaintiff, Hayte, introduced several witnesses who had been in the employment of the defendants in their foundry, and examined them in relation to the apprentices of the defendants leaving their establishment, and the cause of their doing so, and in relation to a “strike” among the employees generally, of the defendants. One of those witnesses, Smeiderkamp, stated, on his examination in chief, that a meeting was held by those engaged in the “strike,” and a paper prepared, setting forth the terms they demanded from the defendants, and a committee was appointed, of which the witness was one, to present that paper to one of the defendants. The object of the “strike,” was, as avowed by this witness, to prevent any more apprentices being taken into defendants' foundry, and to raise the wages of journeymen.

On the cross-examination, the defendants' counsel propounded to the witness the following questions: “Have you joined the Moulders' Union?”“When did you join the Moulders' Union?”“Were you or were you not, during the time of the strike, told by some of the members of the Moulders' Union, that if you would then join the Moulders' Union, it would save you $300?” These questions were severally objected to, on the ground that they were not pertinent to the matter of the direct examination, and the objection was sustained, to which the defendants excepted.

The witness then stated that the committee waited on Comstock, one of the defendants, with the paper mentioned, but that he did not look at it. The defendants' counsel asked him, “Did or did not that paper require Mr. Comstock to agree to different wages for the apprentices?” Objected to, as not pertinent to the matter of the direct examination, and objection sustained.

The witness proceeded: “When the paper was presented, Comstock wanted to talk with us apprentices, by ourselves. We wouldn't do that; we were ordered not to talk unless the whole committee were present.”

Question by defendants' counsel: “Before the strike, were you, or not, followed and insulted by members of the Moulders' Union, for being an apprentice?” Objected to, as not pertinent to the matter of the direct examination. Objection sustained; exception by defendants. “The meeting of which I have spoken, was a meeting of the boys and jours of the shop. It was not after the strike; it was before the strike. We boys had made up our minds to do what we had done; but we got up the meeting to get us all together. We had previously determined to strike. I think we worked the day previous to the meeting. The object of the...