McBride v. People ex rel. Goodman Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1907 |
| Citation | 80 N.E. 306,225 Ill. 315 |
| Parties | McBRIDE v. PEOPLE ex rel. GOODMAN MFG. CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.
Proceedings for contempt by the people, on the relation of the Goodman Manufacturing Company, against J. A. McBride. From a judgment sentencing defendant, affirmed by the Appellate Court, he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
F. M. Lowes and Thomas Marshall, for appellant.
Dudley Taylor, for appellee.
On May 31, 1904, the Goodman Manufacturing Company became involved in a strike with its employés. On August 9, 1904, the superior court of Cook county, on application of the company, issued an injunction restraining certain persons therein named, their confederates, servants, and agents, from in any way interfering with the company, its property, or employés until the further order of the court. On April 12, 1905, the company filed its petition in said court, alleging that on March 22, 1905, while the injunction was in full force and effect, an assault was committed on Frank Mannahan, one of its employés, by John E. Piper and an unknown man; that said assault was caused by the action of John A. McBride, one of the strikers, formerly employed by the company; that on the day of the assault McBride was acting as a picket in violation of the injunction, and was watching for the employés of the company at the southwest corner of Forty-Seventh street and Indiana avenue, in the city of Chicago; that he pointed out Mannahan to Piper and his unknown confederate; that the two men followed Mannahan, and assaulted him on Indiana avenue, between Forty-Seventh and Forty-Eighth streets, about 6 o'clock in the evening; that McBride had full knowledge of the injunction, and had been served with a copy thereof. The prayer of the petition was for a rule on McBride to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Attached to the petition were certain affidavits in support of its allegations. McBride appeared, filed his answer, and presented affidavits in denial of the charge. The matter was heard by the court upon the petition, answer, and affidavits, and the defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to 20 days in the county jail. An appeal was prosecuted to the Appellate Court, where the judgment was affirmed, and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.
WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).
Many grounds of reversal are urged, but we deem it sufficient to consider only one of them. In support of the allegations of the petition two affidavits were filed-one by Frank Mannahan, the man assaulted, and the other by Arnold Schreiner, who was with him just prior to the assault. Mannahan's affidavit is to the effect that he was a floor hand employed by the company at Forty-Ninth and Halsted streets; that there was a strike at the works in 1904, and he took the place of one of the strikers, and had been employed there about four months; that on March 22, 1905, about 6 o'clock p. m., he was going home from work, and on the south side of Forty-Seventh street passed a man on the corner who Schreiner afterwards told him was the defendant, J. A. McBride; that two men followed affiant, and when he reached the middle of the block they struck him in the face and knocked him down; that one of the men, John E. Piper, was subsequently arrested, and the other man escaped. Schreiner's affidavit alleged that he was in charge of the electrical department of the company, and knew McBride, who had formerly been employed by the company; that on March 22, 1905, he went east on Forty-Seventh street with Mannahan, who was employed by the company and had taken the place of a striker; that he saw J. A. McBride standing on the southwest corner of Indiana avenue and Forty-Seventh street; that he also saw two men whom he did not know; that as Mannahan passed the corner McBride pointed him out; that the two men followed and struck him, knocking him down; that one of them, John E. Piper, was subsequently arrested. Affiant stated that McBride was watching for Mannahan, and the assault was part of a scheme.
The defendant filed his sworn answer, in which he alleged that on May 16, 1904, he was injured in the factory of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Rusch v. Fusco
...guilty by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Flannery v. People, 225 Ill. 62, 80 N.E. 60;McBride v. People ex rel. Goodman Manufacturing Co., 225 Ill. 315, 80 N.E. 306; 49 A.L.R. 978. If it is a criminal contempt the evidence must establish the guilt of the defendants beyond a reason......
- St. Louis, A.&T.H.R. Co. v. People ex rel. Wolf