Page images

tites of those who crave and the greed of those Penn. St. 404, to discuss at some length the question who sell the hellish potion.

of privileged communications. I do not propose to go over the same ground again. It is sufficient to

refer to the conclusions arrived at in that case. It NOTES OF CASES.

was there said that a communication to be privi

leged must be made upon a proper occasion, from a IN Press Co. v. Stewart, Pennsylvania Supreme proper motive, and must be based upon reasonable | Court, April 9, 1888, the publication claimed or proper cause. When so made in good faith, the to be libelous appeared in an issue of defendant's law does not imply malice from the communication daily paper, and was as follows: "A School for itself, as in the ordinary case of libel. Actual malReporters. How Col. Stewart Proposes to Man u- ice must be proved before there can be a recovery. facture City Editors. On the north-east corner And whether a communication be privileged or not of Thirteenth and Market streets there is a build. is a question for the court, not the jury.' And ing. On the third story of the building there is lo- tested by this rule, we are of opinion that the articated the office of the School of Clerks, Salesmen cle in question is privileged, not absolutely, but in and Reporters.' A green and innocent Press re- a qualified sense; in that sense however which porter, with a bucketful of trade dollars, (in his makes it the duty of the court to instruct the jury mind's eye) climbed up three flights of stairs yes that it is privileged, and that because of such priviterday afternoon to have a talk with the proprietor lege, no presumption, etc., of malice arises from the of the school..' Col. Stewart, the principal, was mere fact of publication, but malice must be proved seated in a 6 x 8 ante-room north of the school. | as a fact is the cause before the plaintiff can reHe was not particularly enthusiastic over the cover. If we are asked why this article is so priviprospect of the school's' prosperity, or the vis-leged, I answer, because it was proper for public itor's chances of becoming a bloated million information. This plaintiff was holding himself aire. 'Are you a short-hand writer?' was the out to the world as a teacher and guide of youth. first question he asked. "No, sir,' replied the vis He was seeking to attract them to his place by itor. Do you wish to become a salesmau?' No, signs, placards, and advertisements, some of them, sir,' 'Are you after a position as amanuensis in a at least, of an extraordinary nature. This gave him mercantile house?' 'No; I would like to be a re- | a quasi public character. Whether he was a proper porter.' 'Well,' said Col. Stewart, as he tugged at person to instruct the young, and whether his school This beard, the school is intended as a place where | was a proper place for them to receive instruction, persons can learn short-hand, type-writing, and were matters of importance to the public, and the phono-scribbling. But' ventured the visitor, can | Press was in the strict line of its duty when it not a man become a reporter without understand. | sought such information and gave it to the public: ing short-hand ? Is that a requisite?' For ser- , and if that information tended to show that the mons and speeches it is, was the renly. The class plaintiff was a charlatan and his system an imposof reporters you refer to are known as city editors; | ture, the more need that the public, and especially they are all gentlemen of high education and are parents and guardians, should be informed of it. generally graduates of colleges. Newspapers are Aside from this, we do not regard the article as a besieged constantly by applicants for such posi

| libel. At most, it is a harmless bit of pleasantry in tions. These men are not reporters; they are city

| which the reporter has succeeded in making himself cditors; there are about three dozen of them in the | somewhat ridiculous. The matter has been very city.' 'Oh!' said the reporter. Yes,' continued much magnified, and an importance attached to it Col. Stewart, it requires a vast amount of expe- , which it does not deserve. An actionable libel canrience to become a city editor. You must be well | not be created out of nothing." educated and have a general knowledge of— 'Suppose,' interrupted the green reporter, 'that a reporter is sent to a fire in a large pretzel establish- In Teachout v. Des Moines Broad-Gauge St. Ru. Co.. ment, must hea Certainly,' responded Col. Stew Iowa Supreme Court, May 17, 1888, it was held that art, 'of course he must. It requires men of classi a city ordinance, which confers upon a company cal education. We do not pretend to instruct ap- | power to construct street-car lines, and provides that plicants for such positions. The school teaches "such tracks shall be operated with animal power short-hand and type-writing and phono-scribbling, oply,” and that the city shall not, until after thirty but a change is to be made here shortly. I would | years, “confer upon any person or corporation any advise you to consult with Mr. Kerr, who will take | privileges which will impair or destroy the rights and charge in a few days. Mr. Kerr has an office on privileges herein granted," does not preclude the city Walnut street. He is twenty-four years of age | from granting another company the right to operate He will tell Ta, ta,' said the applicant. So lines by other means than animal power, as electricity. long,' responded Col. Stewart. If you want to | The court said: “It seems to us, keeping in mind learn any of the branches --, $20 a quarter, — good- the fundamental rule that corporations are invested bye!” The court charged that the jury might in- | with such powers only as are expressly conferred fer malice from the article in question. The court upon them, and such other powers as are necessary said: “We had occasion in Briggs v. Garrett, 111 ) to carry out those expressly granted, there is little

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

room for discussion or debate as to the powers con- plaintiff contends in the first place that apricots are
ferred upon the Narrow-Gauge Company by this or- | not merchandise.' A walk through the markets
dinance. It has the exclusive right to operate its would probably convince him that he is mistaken.
railways by animal power; and it has no more right It is said however that such fruit comes under the
to interpose objections to the building and opera- head of produce.' Very likely it does. But we
tion of other street railroads, to be operated by think the word merchandise' is used in the above
other power, than if no grant of power has ever section in a larger sense, and covers all kinds of
been made to it. * * * It is strenuously personal property which is ordinarily bought and
contended that the granting of the right to op- sold in the market. Whether it covers more than
erate other street cars will necessarily impair the that need not be decided in this case. This point
rights of the Narrow-Gauge Company by diminish- of plaintiff is not unlike saying that a promissory
ing its revenue, which is derived from the carriage note between farmers is not a negotiable instrument
of passengers. Perhaps this argument is sufficiently because such an instrument is a creation of the law
answered by the thought, that when the city made between merchants.'"
the contract, based upon this ordinance, the parties
thereto were dealing with the known, and not with
the unknown. It may well be questioned whether

In Chapman v. Withers, 20 Q. B. Div. 824, a the city had any power to contract that no other horse was sold, warranted quiet to ride, but to be means of public travel should be allowed upon the returned on the second day after the sale is not corstreets of the city except by cars drawn by horses responding to warranty, and if not so returned no for the period of thirty years. If so, the establish action to be maintainable for a breach. The horse ment of hack lines or omnibus lines, or other means fell while being ridden, and was so injured that of public conveyance, would impair the revenue of he could not safely be returned on the second day, the Narrow-Gauge Company, and thus impair its but plaintiff notified the seller on that day that he rights under this ordinance. Its right is to operate was not as warranted and unfit to travel. Held, the a horse-railroad. It is entitled to the exclusive right

non-return was no bar to an action on the warranty. to do so, and to use all improvements that may be | Lord Coleridge said: “It became useless, and a made thereto; but to nothing more. The city can- mere mass of flesh and bones. To send back the not impair that right; but it does not follow that it

carcass reduced to that state would have been futile. may not authorize other means of street travel. It | The learned counsel could hardly have contended did not undertake to confer upon the company the

that if the horse had been killed outright by the right to carry all the passengers who might desire

accident the dead body must nevertheless have been to travel by public conveyance upon the streets; and

| returned." That defendant could not say, “Let it did not, by the ordinance, contract that new and the galled jade wince, my withers are unwrung." improved and undiscovered methods of travel might not be adopted as the public wants might demand. This ordinance and contract were made by the city CRIMINAL LAW – CONSPIRACY - BOYCOTin behalf of the public, and it should not be so

TING. construed as to fetter and prevent the right to use

ow methods and appliances the result of the in. VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS, MAY 24, 1888.
ventive genius of the age, or to apply the discovery
and application of the latent powers of nature to

CRUMP V. COMMONWEALTH. the use of man. As well might the chartered owner

A conspiracy to boycott is criminal. of a rope-ferry have insisted, years ago, that his ex Rufus d. Ayers, attorney-general, and Wm. L. Royclusive right to that method of transportation pre. all, for Commonwealth. vented the right to charter a ferry propelled by

C. V. Meredith and George D. Wise, for defendants. steam when that element of nature was discovered THIS is a writ of error to a judgment of the Hustings as a propelling power. As sustaining these views, 1 Court of the city of Richmond, rendered on the 23d see Gas-light Co. v. City of Saginaw, 28 Fed. Rep. . day of May, 1887. 529; Railway Co. v. Tramway Co., 30 id. 324; Bridge

FAUNTLEROY, J. The plaintiff in error, W. F. Crump,

was on the 28th day of September, 1886, indicted for a v. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. 116.".

criminal conspiracy by a grand jury impapelled in the
said court. The indictment was against the said Crump

and others-his co-conspirators; and it coutained two In Blackwood v. Cutting Packing Co., California counts. A general demurrer was filed to the indictSupreme Court, May 19, 1888, the court said: "The

ment, and to each count thereof, which was sustained

as to the second count, but was overruled as to the first question is whether there was any warranty.

first count, which charges that “there is, and for The defendant relies upon section 1768 of the Civil

more than twelve months last past there has been, in Code, which is as follows: Sec. 1769. One who the city of Richmond a certain trades-union or as 80agrees to sell merchandise not then in existence ciation, called and known as Richmoud Typographical thereby warrants that it shall be sound and mer

Union, No. 90; that there is in said city and has been

for more than twelve months last past a mercantile chantable at the place of production contemplated

firm or partnership composed of G. H. Baughman, E. by the parties, and as nearly so at the place of de

A. Baughman and C. C. Baughman, who do business livery as can be secured by reasonable care.' The under the firm name and style of Baughman Brothers

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

as privters and stationers; that there is in the said tomers of the said Baughman Brothers, and by and city and has been for more than twelve months last through said threats they, the said Crump, Wilde, past another trades-uuiou or labor association called Shelton, Mullen, Lewis, Healy, Jones and Schouberthe Knights of Labor; that the said partnership of ger, and all the other members of the said tradesBaughman Brothers have a lawful right to follow and union or association called Richmond Typographical pursue their said business as printers and stutiouers Union, No. 90, and all the other members of the said without being molested or interfered with by any oue trades-union or labor association called the Kuights so long as they peaceably pursue the same according of Labor, did, then and there, by reason of said to the laws of the land ; that the trades-union or asso threats, drive off, hinder, deter and prevent the said ciation called Richmond Typographical Union, No. 90, H. J. Myers, W. F. Seymore, Luke Harvey, G. A. is composed of about one hundred members, most of Lathrop and their said mercantile firms as above whom are to the grand jurors unknown; that the said named and many other persons to the grand jurors trades-union or labor association called the Knights of unknown, who had theretofore been customers of the Labor is composed of several thousand members, said Baughman Brothers, from buyiug any thing from most of whom are to the grand jurors unknown; that or from dealing with in any way, or from employing Joseph M. Shelton, G. Waddy Wilde and W. F. Crump as printers the said firm or partnership of G. H. are members of said trades-union or association called Baughman, E. A. Baughman and C. C. Baughman, Richmond Typographical Union, No. 90, and W. H. doing business as Baughman Brothers as aforesaid: Mullea, James A. Healy, J. M. Lewis, Perry Jones and they did then and there, by their said unlawful, and J. H. Schonberger are members of said trades malicious, wicked and corrupt threats, and by their union or labor association called Knights of Labor; | said unlawful acts as hereiabefore set fouth, do a serithat within twelve months last past-to-wit, on the ous injury to the business of the said Baughman 4th day of February, 1886, and on many days there Brothers, against the peace and diguity of the Comafter--the said G. Waddy Wilde, Joseph M. Shelton monwealth of Virginia." and W. F. Crump, together with all the other mem. The defendant, W. F. Crump, thereupon pleaded bers of the said trades-union or association called not guilty; and electing to be tried separately, he Richmond Typographical Union, No. 90, and W. H. was so tried, and the jury, on the 13th day of May, Mullen, James A. Healy, J. M. Lewis, Perry Jones 1887, found him guilty by their verdict and fined him and J. H. Schonberger, together with all the other $5, which verdict the court, upon motion of the demembers of the said trades-union or labor association fendant, refused to set aside and grant a new trial, called the Knights of Labor, who are to the grand but approved the said verdict and entered up the jurors unkuown, with force and arms, at the said city, judgment here complained of. and withiu the jurisdiction of the said Hustings Court, | Upon the trial the defeudant excepted to the rulings well knowing the facts bereinbefore averred, did un- of the court, giving the instruction asked for by the lawfully, maliciously, wickedly and corruptly, know- | Commonwealth, and refusing to give the instructions ingly and intentionally combine, conspire and coufed- asked for by him, and he also excepted to the overerate together to injure, ruiu, break up and destroy ruling by the court of his motion to set aside the verthe said G. H. Baughman, E. A. Baughman and C. C. | dict and grant to him a new trial. Baughman, trading as Baughman Brothers, in their The first error assigued is the action of the court in said business as pripters and stationers as aforesaid, overruling the demurrer to the first count of the inby unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously and corruptly, dictment. It is objected that the indictment does not knowingly and intentionally making threats to a great charge a conspiracy to do any unlawful act, and does number of persons--to-wit, to H. J. Meyers, a mem- not particularly state the means to be used by the ber of a mercantile firm in said city, trading as Slater, conspirators to break up and destroy the business of Myers & Co., which firm is composed of William L. Baughman Brothers, and show that the means to be Slater, Herman J. Myers and John S. Wade; to Wil used were uplawful. The objection cannot be sustained; liam F. Seymore, a member of a mercantile firm in it is wholly groundless and gratuitous, as is plainly said oity, trading as J. H. Griffith & Co., which firm is manifest by the first count in the indictment (which composed of J. H. Griffith & Co., and William F. Sey we have purposely set out in full), to which the demore; to Luke Harvey, a member of a mercantile firm fendant pleaded, and upon which the issue was made in said city, trading as Ellison & Harvey, which firm is ( up and tried, and under which the defendant was composed of William Ellison, Luke Harvey and Fred. found guilty. It charges directly that the defendant L. Swift; to G. A Lathrop, a member of a mercantile and others "did unlawfully and maliciously, wickedly firm in said city, trading as G. A. Lathrop & Co., | and corruptly, knowingly and intentionally combine, which firm is composed of the said G. A. Latbrop aud conspire and confederate together to injure, ruin, to many other persons to the grand jurors unknown break up aud destroy Baughman Brothers in their mall of whom had theretofore been regular customers | business as printers and stationers;'' and that they did of the said firm of Baugbmau Brothers--that if they, this by unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, knowingly, the said H, J. Myers, W. F. Seymore, Luke Harvey, | intentionally and corruptly making threats to a great G. A. Lathrop, or their said mercantile firms as above number of persons mentioned and others unknown to named, or other persons to the graud jurors unknow, the grand jurors, all of whom had been and were at thereafter bought anything from the said firm of the time regular customers and patrous of the said Baughman Brothers, or employed the said Baughmau Baughman Brothers; and that they did then aud Brothers in their said business as printers,

there, by their said unlawful, malicious, wicked and they, the said Wilde, Shelton, Crump and all the corrupt threats, and by their said unlawful acts, as members of the said trades-union or association called hereinbefore set forth, do a serious injury to the busiRichmond Typographical Union, No. 90, and they, the | ness of the said Baughman Brothers, and still Bald Mullen, Jones, Lewis, Healy and Schonberger, 1 greater injury to the peace, diguity and good name of and all the other members of the said trades-union or the Commonwealth of Virginia, to the evil example of labor association called the Knights of Labor, would | all her people. do all in their power to break up and destroy the

1 This specially and exactly charges a criminal conbusiness of the said H. J. Myers, W. F. Seymore, Luke spiracy unprovoked, wanton and unlawful, both as to Harvey, G. A. Lathrop, and their said mercantile | the end aimed at

the end aimed at and the means used to accomplish it. Arms as above pamed, and many other persons to the It charges a combination of this defendant and bis grand jurors unkuown, who had theretofore beeu cus- co conspirators to ruiu, break up and destroy the busi

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

ness of Baughman Brothers; and it charges the a criminal offense-namely, that of conspiring against means used and the success of the unlawful endeavor the liberty of mind and freedom of will of those tooperated upou the peaceful and honest industries of wards whom they conducted themselves. He was rethe customers and patrons of Baughman Brothers. ferring to coercion and compulsion, something that

A conspiracy or combination to injure a person in was unpleasant and annoying to the mind operated his trade or occupation is indictable. In the case of upon, and he laid it down as clear and undoubted law Rex y. Eccles, 1 Leach, 274, several persons were in that if two or more persons agreed that they would by dicted for conspiring to impoverish a tailor and to pre such means co-operate together against that liberty, vent him by indirect means from carrying on his they would be guilty of an indictable offense. The trade. They were convicted, and upon a motion in public had an interest in the way in which a person arrest of judgment it was objected (as in this case) disposes of his industry and his capital; and if two or that the indictment ought to have stated the acts that more persons conspired, by threats, intimidation or were committed to impoverish the tailor and prevent molestation to deter or influence him in the way he him from carrying on his trade in order that the de should employ his industry, his talents or his capital, fendants might thereby have had notice of the particu they would be guilty of a criminal offense. This was lar charges they were called upon to answer. But the common law of the land," etc. Lord Mansfield, without hearing the prosecution, said: In the case of Stute v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 157, it “The conspiracy and object of it are both stated in was held to be “an indictable conspiracy for several the indictment, but it is conteuded that the means by employees to combine and notify their employer that which the intended mischief was effected ought also unless he discharged certain enumerated persons they to have been particularly set forth, as in the case of will in a body quit his employment." In his opinion Rex v. Sterling ; but this is certainly not necessary, in that case Chief Justice Beasley said: “There are a for the offense does not consist in doing the acts by number of cases in which neither the purpose inwhich the mischief is effected-for they may be per tended to be accomplished nor the means designed to fectly indifferent-but in conspiring with a view to be used were criminal, which have been regarded to effect the intended mischief by any means. The ille- | be criminal," quoting State v. Norton, 3 Zab. 44; aud gal combination is the gist of the offense.” Buller, citing Rex v. Lord Gray, 3 Hargrave's State Trials, J., said: “The indictment states that the de. 519; Rex v. Sir Francis Deleval, 3 Burr. 1434, he says: fendants, intending, unlawfully and by indirect means, “These are all cases, it will be noticed, in which the to impoverish the prosecutor, unlawfully did conspire, act which formed the foundation of the indictment etc.' But nothing need to have been stated about the would not in law have constituted a crime, if such act means, for the means are matter of evidence, to prove had been done by an individual, the combination bethe charge and not the crime itself. The indictment | ing alone the quality of the transaction which made therefore rather states too much thau too little." This them respectively indictable.” “The purpose decase was under consideration in the recent case of signed to be accomplished becomes punitive, as a pubMogul Steamship Company v. McGregor, Gow & Co., Jic offense, solely from the fact of the existence of a 15 Q. B. Div. 476, decided in 1885, when Lord Cole- confederacy to effect such offense.” “The doctrine of ridge, C. J., said of the case : “ It seems to both of us criminal conspiracy rests upon the obvious proposito be within the prinoiple of an old case decided by tion that the power of many for mischief against the Lord Mansfield, the King v. Eccles, 1 Leach, 200, 274, one is so great the State should protect the one. 276, # * * and so far as I know, the case itself is Therefore the general principle on which the crime of as good law now as when Lord Mansfield enunciated conspiracy is founded is this, that the confederacy of it, and could be upheld at the present day. It seems several persons to effect any injurious object creates to me also to be within the principle neatly stated by such a new and additional power to cause injury as Tindal, C. J., in the Queen V. O'Connell, 11 Clark and requires criminal restraint, although none would be F. 334, as to what is evidence necessary to make out necessary were the same thing proposed or even atconspiracy; and also of the opinion of Lord Fitz tempted to be done by persons singly.” “Now that gerald in the case of Reging v. Parnell. The Times of many acts which, if done by an individual, are not iuJanuary 25-26, 1881. If the judgment of the learned dictable, are punished criminally when done in purjudge is correct-and I do not mean to intimate the suance of a conspiracy among numbers, is too well slightest doubt as to its correctness—that a conspiracy settled to admit of controversy. In many cases an to do the thing which has been called by the name of agreement to do a certain thing has been considered as boycotting is unlawful and an indictable offense; and the subject of an indictment for couspiracy, though if so, theu a thing for which an action will lie, an ac- the same act, if done separately by each individual, tion may well lie for that which is complained of without any agreement among themselves, would not here." "A combination is a conspiracy in law, when have been illegal." State v. Rowley, 12 Conn. 112-13; over the act to be done has a necessary tendency to Reg. v. Duffield, 5 Cox C. C. 432; State v. Crowley, 41 prejudice the public or to oppress individuals by un Wis. 271. justly subjecting them to the power of the confeder The next error assigned is the action of the court in ates and giving effect to the purposes of the latter, giving the instruction asked for by the Commonwhether of extortion or mischief." Wharton's Crim. wealth, as follows: “If the jury believe from the eviLaw, vol. 3, $ 23, 22 (6th ed.). In section 2304 of same dence that the defendant Crump entered into an writer it is said the unlawful purpose may be “some agreement with one or more of the defendants object of the confederation which it would be unlaw. whereby they undertook to coerce the firm of Baughful for them to attain either singly, or which, if lawful man Brothers to discharge from their employment, singly, it would be dangerous to the public to be at- against the will of the said firm, certain persons then tained by the combination of individual means." See in their employment and to take into their employ. 3 Greenl. Ev., $ 90. In the case of Reg. v. Druitt, 10 ment certain other persons that the said Baughmani Cox C. C., Baron Bramwell said: “The liberty of Brothers did not wish to take into their employment, a man's mind and will, to say how he should bestow then they are instructed that said agreement was unhimself and his means, his talents and his industry, lawful; and if they believe further from the evidence was as much a subject of the law's protection as was that in pursuance and to carry out said agreement, that of his body," and "if any set of men agree among he, the defendant, threatened any of the customers of themselves to coerce that liberty of mind and thought the said Baughman Brothers they (the said persons by combination and restraint they would be guilty of making said agreement) would injure the business of

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

such customers by intimidating their customers and apon Lord Earue's tenants, and the tenantry sudmaking them afraid to continue their patron age of denly retaliated, etc. His life appeared to be in danthe customers of the said Baughman Brothers, then ger. He had to claim police protection. * * * To they must find the defendant guilty.” The instruc- prevent civil war the authorities had to send a force of tion plainly and correctly expounds the law against soldiers and police to Lough Mark, and Captaiu Boy. unlawful combipation and guilty conspiracy to inter cott's harvest was brought in and his potatoes dug by fere with, molest, break up and ruin the legitimate, the armed Ulster laborers, guarded always by tbe litlicensed-business of peaceable, useful, industrious and tle army.'” The court proceeded to say: “If this is a honest citizens, and to accomplish this end by the correct picture, the tbing we call a boycott originally threat and intimidation of doing all in their power". siguified violence, if not murder. * * * But even of the conspirators to “break up and destroy the here, if it means, as some high in the confidence of the business" of all the existing or future customers of trades-union assert, absolute ruin to the business of Baughman Brothers, who should thereafter buy “any the person boycotted unlegs be yields, then it is crimthing from the said firm of Baughman Brothers, or | nal.” The essential idea of boycotting, whether in emploved them, the said Baughman Brothere, in their | Ireland or the United States, is a confederation, geusaid business as printers." And the instruction, so | erally secret, of many persons, whose intent is to infar from being a mere declaration of abstract law, is a l jure another by preventing any and all persons from direct and proper application of the law to the case | doing business with him, through fear of incurring put in the indictment and made by the evidence. It | the displeasure, persecution and vengeance of the conis next to impracticable to extend this opinion by re- | spirators. citing the evidence in detail further than we shall do In the case of State y. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 151, when we come to consider the error assigned upon the Chief Justice Beasley, in delivering the opinion of the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence in the court, said: “It appears to me that it is not to be derecord to justily the verdict.

nied that the alleged aim of this combination was unThe instructions which were asked for by the de- / lawful-the effort was to dictate to this employer whom fendant and refused by the court were properly re- | he should discharge from his employ. This was an fused, as they did not correctly expound the law, and unwarrantable interference with the conduct of his were unwarranted by the evidence. And more than business," eto. If the manufacturer can be compelled the defect of having no predication in the evidence, in this way to discharge two or more hands, he can by they utterly and adroitly ignore the facts proved-of similar means be coerced to retain such workmen as the evil intent of the defendant and his confederates the conspirators may choose to designate. So his to do a wanton, causeless injury and ruin, to compel customers may ba proscribed, and his business in other and coerce Baughman Brothers to give up the coutrol respects controlled. I cannot regard such a course of and conduct of their own long-establisbed, useful and conduct as lawful." independent business to the absolute dictation and Chief Justice Shaw, in the case of Com. v. Hunt, 4 control of a combination of the defendant and others, Metc. 111, says: “The law is not to be hoodwinked styling themselves “Richmond Typographical Union, by colorable pretenses-it looks at truth and reality No. 90," and to do this by the obtrusion, terrorism, ex- through whatever disguises it may assume. It is said communication and obloqus of the "boycott" against that neither threats nor intimidations were used, but Baughman Brothers and all their customers in Rich- uo man can fail to see that there may be threats, and moud, Lynchburgh, and throughout Virginia and there may be intimidations, and there may be molestNorth Carolina ad infinitum, till they force the con ing, and there may be obstructing (which the jury are quest and submission of all resistance to their de- | quite satisfied have taken place from all the evidence mands and self-constituted management. A reign of | in the case), without there being any express words terror, which if not checked and punished in the be- | used by which a man should show any violent threats ginning by the law will speedily and inevitably run toward another, or any express intimidation." "An into violersce, anarchy, and mob-tyramıy.

intention to create alarm in the mind of a manufacWe come uow to the main question involved in this turer, and so to force his assent to au alteration in the appeal, whether the evidence set forth in this record mode of carrying on his business, is a violation of presents a conspiracy at common law. The determi- | law." Regina v. Rowland, 5 Cox (. C. 436, 462-63; nation of this question is indeed the object bought, as Doolittle v. Schanbuclur, 20 Cent. L. J. 229. we not only infer from the paltry fine of $5 imposed Upon the trial of boycotters in New York, Judge by the verdict, but by the intimation in argument by ) Barrett said: “The men who walk up and down in the able and accomplished counsel for the defendant. | front of a man's shop may be guilty of intimidation, Is boycotting as resorted to and practiced by the con though they never raise a fiuger or utter a word. Their spirators in this case, allowable under the laws of Vir- | attitude may nevertheless be that of a menace. They ginia ?

may intimidate by their numbers, their pleadings, For a legal definition or explanation of the meaning their methods, their circulars and their devices." and practical meaning of the cabalistio word, as well It matters little what are the means adopted by comas for a pertinent exposition of the law applicable to binations formed to intimidate employers or to coerce the facts of this case, we refer to the admirable opinion | other journeymen if the design or the effeot of them of Judge Wellford of the Circuit Court of the City of is to interfere with the rights or to control the free Richmond, in the case of Baughman Brothers v. Askeu, | action of others. No one has a right to be hedged in 195 Va. L.J. (April), and also to the decision of the Su- and protected from competition in business; but he preme Court of Connecticut in the case of Stale v. Glid- has a right to be free from wanton, malicious and inden, 55 Com. 76. In that case the court says: “We may solent interference, disturbance or annoyance. Every gather some idea of its (boycotting) real meaning

man has the right to work for whom he pleases, and however by a reference to the circumstances in which | for any price he can obtain; and he has the right to the word originated. These circumstances are thus deal with aud associate with whom he chooses, or to narrated by Mr. Justice McCarthy, an Irish gentle- | let severely alone, arbitrarily and contemptuously, if man of learning and ability, who will be recognized as he will, anybody and everybody upon earth; but this good authority: 'Captain Boycott was an Englishman freedom of uncontrolled and unchallenged self-will man agent for Lord Earne, and a farmer at Lough does not give or imply a right, either by himself or in Mark, in the wild and beautiful district of Conne-l combination with others, to disturb, injure or obstruct mara. In his capacity as agent he had served notice another, either directly or indirectly, in his lawful

« PreviousContinue »