Wyeman v. Deady

• Citation: 65 A. 129,79 Conn. 414
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 18 December 1906
• Parties: WYEMAN v. DEADY et al.

65 A. 129

79 Conn. 414

WYEMAN

v. DEADY et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 18, 1906.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Action by William E. Wyeman against John M. Deady and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. No error.

Action to recover damages caused by the act of the defendants in procuring the plaintiff, by threats and intimidation, to be discharged by his employers, brought to the superior court of Hartford county, and tried to the jury before R. Wheeler, J. Verdict for the plaintiff. Defendants' motion to set aside the verdict denied by the court. Appeal by defendants. No error.

Benedict M. Holden, for appellants. Walter S. Schutz and Stanley W. Edwards, for appellee.

HALL, J. The amended complaint in this action contains substantially these allegations: The plaintiff is a painter, decorator, and wood finisher, and, as such, has been in the employ of David R. and Frank M. Hawley, who are painters and contractors. The defendant, the Painters, Decorators & Paper Hangers of America, Local Union No. 481, a voluntary association located in Hartford, is a trade union whose proceedings are secret, and which is organized for the purpose of maintaining high rates of wages, reducing the hours of labor, preventing the employment of nonunion men, and similar purposes. The defendant Deady is a member of said association, and its business agent or walking delegate.

On or before the 25th of October, 1905, the defendants "maliciously and unlawfully conspired, combined, and confederated with each other, and with other persons to the plaintiff unknown, to injure the plaintiff, and to prevent him from working at his trade, and from obtaining employment," and on said day, "in pursuance of said conspiracy, willfully, and maliciously, and by means of threats and intimidations, induced the said David R. and Frank M. Hawley to discharge the plaintiff from their employ" and "because of the threats and intimidations of the defendants" the said Hawleys, on said day, discharged the plaintiff from their employ. At that time the plaintiff was receiving wages at the rate of $3 per day. Since his discharge he has been unable to obtain steady employment, and has thereby lost a large sum of money, which he would otherwise have earned, and "has been greatly injured in his business, and has been greatly damaged by the unlawful action of the defendants." The complaint is dated November 16, 1905, and claims $1,500 damages. The answer in effect denies the above-stated allegations of the complaint. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $425 damages. The defendants filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, upon the ground that it was against the evidence, and that the damages awarded were excessive, which motion was denied by the trial court. The denial of said motion is the only error assigned in the appeal. The decision of the trial judge should be sustained if it appears from the printed record before us that there was some evidence upon which the jury could reasonably have found the issues submitted to them in favor of the plaintiff, and could properly have awarded him damages to the amount named in the verdict. Birdseye's Appeal, 77 Conn. 623-625, 60 Atl. 111.

The defendants contend that the record contains no evidence of the alleged conspiracy, nor of the alleged malice, at least, upon the part of the union, nor of any authority of Deady from the union to make the claimed threats; and that as it appears from the plaintiff's own testimony that he was unemployed but 86 days during the period between the day of his discharge, and the date of the...