About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

2 Monthly Bull. Int'l Jurid. Ass'n 1 (1933-1934)

handle is hein.journals/injasmb2 and id is 1 raw text is: 



Vol. 2 No.  I /

JUNE  1933


Price $1 a  ear

  Foltis Fischer, Inc., a chain of restaurants in New York
and  Brooklyn,  was put  into receivership by one  of its
creditors in the summer of  1932.  Up  to that time there
had  been no  labor dispute although  the Food  Workers
Industrial Union  was seeking  to organize the employees.
But early in 1933, the Irving Trust Company,  the receiver
appointed by  the Federal Court, started a policy of dis-
charging employees  found  to be  members  of the  union.
Finally, when  negotiations failed, a strike was called to
secure the reinstatement of the discharged employees.
  After  unsuccessfully attacking the union in the federal
court, the receiver turned for relief to the state court'.
  On  April 7, Justice McCook, upon  voluminous affidavits
in which  the menace  of a Red  union  was prominently
played up, granted a temporary  injunction restraining vio-
lence2.  That  order was  without  prejudice to a  future
application for broader relief if the pickets violated the
McCook   injunction.  A  subsequent application was made
and on  May  15 Justice Valente, on the authority of Nann
v. Raimist', handed down  a decision granting all the relief
sought'.  This  included the prohibition of all picketing,
of advertising the dispute by leaflets or in the press, in
fact, practically forbidding all resistance by the union.
The  case was set down for immediate trial on May 25.
  May   17, before the Valente order was settled or signed,
Rubin, the secretary of the union, applied to the federal
court for an order to show  cause wby the receiver should
not be  restrained from going further with the state pro-
ceeding.  This order to show cause itself contained a stay
restraining the receiver from proceeding with said cause
in the Supreme  Court of the State of New  York'.  The
same  evening counsel for the receiver applied to have the
stay vacated. Judge  Bondy,  in charge of the receivership
in the federal court, refused to vacate the stay but asked
that pickets be taken off until after the sale of the prop-
erty scheduled for two days  later. The  next day Justice
Valente signed the order submitted by  the receiver in the
state proceedings. Despite the federal stay, copies of the
Valente  injunction, some of  them  certified, were served
broadcast-but   without notice of entry.
  The  day  following, May 19, the argument on  the order
to show cause came  on in the federal court. Former Rep-
                  (Continued on Page Four)
  1. Contempt Proceedings Against Strikers by a Receiver, I. J. A. Bull.,
Vol. 1, No. 11, p. 1, discussed the case up to the point where the federal
receiver discontinued contempt proceedings in the federal court against the union
leaders and obtained, by an ex parte order, permission to sue in the state court
for injunctive or such other relief as to the receiver may be advised.
  2. Irving Trust Co. v. Rubin, Sp. Term, Part I, N. Y. Co., N. Y. L. J.,
April 6, 1933, McCook, J.
  3. 255 N. Y. 307; The implications of this case will be discussed in the next
issue of the  Bulletin.
  4. Irving Trust Co v. Rubin, Sp. Term, Part I, N. Y. Co., N. Y. L. J.,
May 16, 1933, Valente, J.
  5. Model Dairy Co. v. Foltis Fischer, Inc., E. 69-44, May 17, 1933, Bondy, J.

           RECENt ITElv[L        444TEREST
  The  Mooney   Case.  Tom  Mooney   was tried on the one
remaining indictment outstanding against him before Judge
Ward   on May  23.  District Attorney Matthew  Brady  re-
fused to  introduce any evidence against him  because he
believes Mooney  to be innocent, but these tactics made it
impossible for Mooney  to contradict the perjured evidence
on which he was originally convicted. Mooney's innocence,
again established by this trial, does not prevent his having
to continue to serve out his life sentence. Governor Rolph
refuses to pardon him.   His only  recourse now is to go
into the federal courts on this claim: that California pro-
cedure which  refuses an innocent man convicted of crime
any chance  long afterwards to set aside that conviction is
a denial of due process of law.
  Harlan  Conviction Affirmed.  The  conviction of W. B.
Jones for homicide  arising out of the Evarts battle last
year was  affirmed by  the Kentucky  Court  of Appeals'.
The  case is being handled by the Industrial Workers  of
the World.

                 RIGHTS  OF   NEGROES
  Two   Scottsboro Boys  Transferred  to Juvenile Court.
The  cases of Roy Wright  and  Eugene  Williams, the two
youngest of the nine Scottsboro boys, were transferred by
Judge Horton  on June  1 to the Juvenile Court of Morgan
County.  This is a tardy admission by the Alabama Courts
that all the legal proceedings against these boys-subsequent
to their indictment-have been without  jurisdiction. Both
were tried by the Circuit Court  of Jackson  County, the
regular criminal court, in April of 1931. In Roy Wright's
case there was a disagreement and he has been held in jail
ever since without being  tried again. Eugene   Williams
was convicted but his conviction set aside by the Supreme
Court  of Alabama  on  March  24, 1932, because the state
never contradicted evidence introduced at his trial that he
was  a juvenile2, i. e., under the age of 16, and sent the
case back to have  this question determined. Now,   more
than a year later, it has been decided in his favor. Both
boys have for two years been held in jail with adults con-
trary to the statute law of Alabama.
  Negro  Shot on Construction Job Granted  Compensation.
A  construction company  was  working  on  a road  job in
Grand  Parish, Louisiana, where Negroes  are not allowed.
The   company  brought  many  Negroes   who  had  worked
for it in other regions. A tent colony was set up for :he
Negro   employees.  One  of the  Negroes, Ed  Ivory, was
shot at night, while asleep, by someone in a passing truck.
All the Negroes left the job and it was completed by white
  1. Jones v. State, April, 1933, not yet reported.
  2. Powell v. Alabama, 224 Ala. 540.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most