{
  "id": 5452089,
  "name": "James S. O'Brien et al., Appellees, v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union et al. (Defendants); Ash-Madden-Rae Company et al., Appellees, v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union et al. (Defendants). In the Matter of the Contempt of Sam Schuester, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "O'Brien v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union",
  "decision_date": "1919-04-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,710",
  "first_page": "61",
  "last_page": "64",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 Ill. App. 61"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 330,
    "char_count": 5728,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29438434441544664
    },
    "sha256": "cff00db30e83bee977aa1a285bc82a0744ef34ea379b602862bd6a0f48d329ef",
    "simhash": "1:3208d6c8df099362",
    "word_count": 967
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:35:57.308743+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James S. O\u2019Brien et al., Appellees, v. International Ladies\u2019 Garment Workers\u2019 Union et al. (Defendants). Ash-Madden-Rae Company et al., Appellees, v. International Ladies\u2019 Garment Workers\u2019 Union et al. (Defendants). In the Matter of the Contempt of Sam Schuester, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is one of the contempt cases which we have referred to in our opinion this day filed in case No. 23,705, ante, p. 46. What we there said as to the circumstances and the legal propositions involved applies to the case of this appellant and is adopted as part of this opinion.\nAppellant Schuester is a member of one of the organizations affiliated with the International Ladies\u2019 Garment Workers\u2019 Union, and had been employed by one of the complainants. He went out on strike February 15th. Later a petition was filed charging him and one Sam Handleman with violating the injunction by acts of intimidation and violence against one Harry Pefferman, an employee of the complainant. Schuester was found guilty of violation of the injunction and sentenced to a term of 6 months in the county jail and to pay a fine of $100.\nThe evidence tended to show that on March 26, 1917, Schuester and Handleman went to the place where Pefferman lived and made their way into his bedroom where he was asleep in bed; that they commenced to beat him with an iron curtain rod, inflicting wounds and bruises on his arms, elbows and abdomen, which still appeared at the time of the hearing in court. He fell out of bed, and Schuester jumped on him and struck him in the face. Pefferman said to Schuester during the assault, \u201cYou know what you will get from the court for this,\u201d and Schuester replied, \u201cI don\u2019t care if I get 20 years, I want to beat you up.\u201d This stands uncontradicted in the record. There was testimony by other witnesses that Schuester made statements admitting the assault, but referring to it as \u201can argument.\u201d Handleman and Schuester were both members of the Garment Workers\u2019 Union and were well known to Pefferman, who testified that when they arrived in his room on the night of the assault Schuester stated he wished Pefferman would not continue to work, but was told by Pefferman that as everybody was working in the shop he would continue to work, and that thereupon they commenced to beat him.\nIn defense it is stated that the evidence fails to show that Schuester had notice of the injunction, but this is not justified by the record. Schuester in his testimony admits that he had heard that his union was enjoined. Another witness also testified that he had employed Schuester during the strike and had talked with him as to why he was not working; that this conversation took place in the vicinity of the factory where placards were posted giving information concerning the injunction. There is also other evidence as to the widespread publicity by newspapers and posting of sum- \u2022 maries of the injunction. We are of the opinion, in view of Schuester\u2019s admission and the other evidence, that his knowledge of the. injunction was sufficiently proven.\nIt is asserted that the assault is not shown to have been connected with the injunction. The undisputed testimony of Pefferman as to why he was assaulted, taken in connection with the other circumstances of the case, established clearly that the assault on P'efferman was\u2019solely for the purpose of intimidating him so as to cause him to stop working. The assault was brutal and in defiance of the order of court, as indicated by 'Schuester\u2019s remarks at the time, that he would commit the assault regardless of what the court might do.\nThere can be no doubt as to the propriety of the finding that Schuester was guilty, and in view of the seriousness and flagraney of the offense the punishment is not unreasonable. The judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harrow & Sissman, for appellant; Victor S. Tarros, of counsel.",
      "Lewis F. Jacobson, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James S. O\u2019Brien et al., Appellees, v. International Ladies\u2019 Garment Workers\u2019 Union et al. (Defendants). Ash-Madden-Rae Company et al., Appellees, v. International Ladies\u2019 Garment Workers\u2019 Union et al. (Defendants). In the Matter of the Contempt of Sam Schuester, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,710.\n1. Injunction, \u00a7 260 \u2014when punishment for violation of injunction not unreasonable. On appeal from an order punishing appellant for acts of intimidation and violence in violation of an injunction issued during a strike, evidence that appellant, a member of one of the striking unions, in company with another, made their way into the bedroom of one of the workers and, upon his refusing to quit work, committed a violent assault accompanied by language indicating a disregard for the injunction, held to show that the finding of guilty was justified and the punishment of 6 months in jail and a fine of $100 not unreasonable.\n2. Injunction, \u00a7 257*\u2014when knowledge of injunction against union shown. An appeal from a sentence for violation of an injunction, evidence that appellant admitted that he knew his union was enjoined, that a witness had talked with him in the vicinity of the factory where placards were posted giving information as to the injunction and that there was widespread publicity concerning it, held sufficient to show that he had knowledge of the injunction.\n3. Injunction, \u00a7 257*\u2014when shown that assault was committed in connection with injunction against strikers. On appeal from a conviction for violation of an injunction issued during a strike, the undisputed testimony of the worker assaulted by appellant as to why he was assaulted, in connection with other circumstances of the case, held to show that the assault was committed in connection with the injunction.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 7, 1919.\nHarrow & Sissman, for appellant; Victor S. Tarros, of counsel.\nLewis F. Jacobson, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XVt and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0061-01",
  "first_page_order": 93,
  "last_page_order": 96
}