The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, August 7, 1904, Page 33

COURT ISSUES INJUNGTION PERPETUMLY RESTRAINING STABLEMEN'S UNION B VIOLENGE TO EN FROM ENDEAVORING SAN FRANCISCO, SUNDAY, AUGUST (VMR NESS THINKS DEGSION VGTORY FOR BIGAT ¢ ¢ ] REGARD it as the greatest legal victory over unjust condi- tions that has ever occurred in the United States. It is a declaration that an employer may conduct his business with employes who will earn their wages. The decision means practically that employers may use the ‘open-shop’ policy without interference from incompetent men. It bars boycotting and cheap carriers of signs in front of the place where a man is conducting a business Through the de- cision competent men who refuse to pay the toll exacted by labor that is honest and to the interest of the public. unions for the privilege of working for their living are given the protection of the law. Employers are equally protected in so far as they are privileged to hire such men as can perform their duties. I | do not believe that the State Supreme Court will reverse Judge WILL FIGHT NEW TAY LAW Editor Marriott Will Endeav- or to Show That the Sausa- lito Ordinance Is Illegal SUBMITS A DEMURRER Defense Alleges Many Irreg- ularities and Court De- fers Argument in Case —_—— Special Dispatch to The Call. g. 6.—The case of the versus Frederick Marriott, who everal days ago for re- annual street poll tax , came up to-day. Marriott en- 2" a plea of not guiity and his at- itted a long demurrer to who instructed them to agree date which would be agree- k des to hear the argu- rt does not show was committed in- tain a statement of tituting the alleged v and concise lan- a person of or- g to know what is at it does not show has been paid or does not state facts suf- reason that the ordin- onal, because it 1, sections 6, 15 on of the State on § of the constitu- osing of excessive to imprisonment for to the granting of ties which on the ot be granted to all at all male citizens are withholding from the ge of being taxed in Also, that the ordinance v with section €71 of the act, and that the munieipal cory municipal corpora upon the t 1pose & stre stitutiona and, finally, at the ordinance and all of its pro- clons are uncertain, vague, ambigu- and unintell ! Trustees s ere represented by C. McPike and George Harlan, ordinance is being rigidly en- uty marshals are in attend- arrival and departure of a thorough poll of the made by order of the ROBBEES HOTD UP A PORTLAND STREETCAR Two Masked Men Operate in the City’s Suburbs and Rob Eight Passengers. PORTLAND, . 5.—One of the cars of the recent of the Portia pany was he night on P masked highwaym passengers on the car, all of whom were robbed. Ii is not known how much was obtained, but the amount was considerabie. —— completed scenic road et Railway Com- about midnight last Heights by two There were eight + or World’s Fair why not bave your tickets read one way via the Northern Pacific Ry. and stop en route and visit the Yellowstone Park. For particulars T. K. Stateler, General Agent, N. P. Ry., Market street. . ————————— Capitola Not Quarantined. _ CAPITOLA, Aug. 6.—The rumor San Francisco, that has been spread to the effect that | the this city has been quarantined on ac- count of fever ie without foundation. e e el Your Credit Is Gouid. Baron's grest sale on cloaks and suits this week only. 115 Geary st., from 762 Market, ¢ of Association. A scenes of violence during strikes. Judge John Hunt of the Superior Court handed down a decision yester- day which, in its effect upon industrial affairs, is the most important ever ren- dered on the Pacific Coast. This deci- sion was reached in the case of E. G. Plerce, proprietor of the Nevada sta- bles, supported by the Citizens' Al- liance, against Stablemen’s Union, Lo- cal No. 8760, | i on the side of the stable owner. The union produced no witnesses. The ar- guments were made by Maguire and Van Ness and the case was submitted. Judge Hunt's opinion, rendered yester- day, follows: CASE IS EXPLAINED. On the 224 day of April, 1904, the plaintift, P'Xerv.'e. was the owner of an interest in the Nevada Livery Stables; on that date he em ployed ten men, all of whom, save one, This suit had as its purpose the quiet- | j25°d 1o the defendant, the Stablemen's i 1 posed ing of the striking stablemen that| 600 members. Azo:.’u:"{rm:ogne nln?:mw:: tween the plaintiff and his men were har- monious; the latter Were working upon the schedule, during the hours, for the wages, and under the conditions prescribed by their About 7 o'clock on the morning of that day the plaintiff was visited by a walking delegate of the defendgnt’s union, who re- Quested him to discharge the non-union man then in his employ and substits man in his steag, ” eIl The plaintiffl déclined to do so; whereu :lm; wn!klllis dele{'i](ei interviewed’ all of The inion employes of plaintiff and they thereupon ceased work and left his employment. snor’fiy thereafter two pickets from the union arrived and commenced to march up and down In front of the stable entrance; one of them carrying & banner bearing the words, “Unfalr stable! Uni men put in:" The following day three or four pickets ap- peared and patrolled the premises, and within & week thereafter the number of pickets grad- uvally Increased, until upon some occasions there were as many as fifty men. Concurrently with the strike in plaintiff's stable the union employes in some thirty-six other stables in this city went out and were thereupon assigned to picket duty at those stables. Dally, between § and 7 o'clock in the evening and when patrons of plaintiff, with their horses and vehicles, were returning to the stable, there were never less than thirty and frequently from forty to fifty pick- ets, bearing one or more of banners re- ferred to and marching in front of plaintiff's stable in an elliptical formation, their line extending nearly fifty feet and completely blecking the entrance thereof. While the pickets were thus marching one or more of them ~was continuously shouting, “Unfair stabl The presence of so large a body of men, thelr marching, their banners and their out- cries, served to attract the attention and presence of a large concourse of people, so that travel upon the street in front of the stable e mn:e-lt‘ed ;.o the extent that, upon oc- ons, police interference was necessary to clear both sidewalk and street. One Munroe Wwas @ppointed by the union captain of the picketd, with full authority to order, direct and conirol their action. He testified that his business was Lo see tha the men acted “‘within the law,” but the union left it to him to determine what conduct, upon their part,-would be “within the law.” He admitted that he was the agent of the harassed, threatened and terrorized the non-union men employed by the stable owners in place of union men who re- fused to work when demapds made by them were rejected as unreasonable. In the prayer of his complaint Pierce de- manded that an injunction issue per- petually restraining the defendant un- jon from interfering with his business in any way, from picketing his prem- ises and from molesting or intimidatng his workmen and patrons. His prayer has been granted by Judge Hunt, and in language that is plain and supported by higher authority the court reaffirms the principle that the right to labor is natural and inalieniable. Judge Hunt's opinion will serve to clarify the local atmosphere, which has long been clouded by controversy be- tween employer and employe. His order is the most sweeping ever issued by & Western court against the common practices of unionism. In view of the fact, however, that the constitution- ality of a statute upon which the un- ions based their right to boycott and make the same effective is ruled against, the case will not rest on Judge Hunt's decision. It will be carried at once to the Supreme Court by the de- feated organization. This fact was an- | nounced in Judge Hunt's courtroom vesterday morning by C. P. Munroe, captain of the stablemen’s pickets, who was present to hear the reading of the decision. ! STABLEMEN RESTRAINED. { | In June Judge Hunt issued a tem- porary restraining order against the stablemen that were boycotting Plerce’s stable and committing various acts tending to injure his business. When the hearing came up on a motion to dissolve the injunction it was agreed between James G. Maguire, attorney for the union, and T. C. Van Ness, at- torney for the stable owner, that the case should be tried on its merits and should be a test case of the right of un- ions to boycott and commit other acts against a business without fear of in- Junction from a court of equity. The statute upon which the union relied fol- men locked out and non-union to “‘put pressure ol iaimcd force’” upon plaintiff. He had the right to take “boycotting measures” against the plaint- iff and that he acted accordingly. METHODS OF STRIKERS. The law defines the word boycott as organized attempt to coerce or intimidate or that the union lows: inte_compl! with & demand by combining to abstain and compelling others to abstain Section 1. No nt, combination, Of | from any business or ‘relations with social him.” Thus defined the evidence herein abun- dartly proves that Munroe accomplished his purpose of “boycotting” plaintift, contract, by or between two or more 0 do or procure to be done, or not to do or procure not to be done, any act in contempla- tion or furtherance of any trade dispute be- tween employers and employes in the State of visited plaintiff’s Dremises, bearing a banner thome engazea therein be. IndletBle. G other- | denouncing bis business as untair and con- wise punishable for the crime of " | taifiing the false statement that he had if such act committed by one person would | .locked out” union men from his stable. not be ppni as & crime, nor shall such | Every bour of the day, from 7 in the morn- agreement, tion or contract be con- | i until 7 at night, the pickets were shout- ing that the stable was unfair; while Munroe, in the evening, when the concourse of people walking or riding home in the cars on Market street was the greatest, loudly called their attention to the stable and bade them *Look at this stable! The only unfair stable or Market street; the stable that always was anc always will be unfair. Upon occasions he and other members of called id b ‘combinat sidered as in restraint of trade or commerce, rest) order or_injunction wi ion thereto. Nothing in tlis act sball exempt from punishment, other- than is ex Solon and that. es such, he considered it his . Hunt’s decision.”—T. C. Van Ness, counsel for the Stable-Owners’ % —— n | Debs, { Daily, for nearly two months, the pickets | ge | therefore, is the question of remedy, e SERRLUNT DISTINGUISHED _ JURIST RENDERED THE DECISION TERDAY AGAINST STABLEMEN. ‘WHO YES- EFFECT ONINDUSTRIAL CONDIT PERMANENT injunction was granted yesterday by Judge John Hunt restraining the Stablemen’s Union from further effort to make effective, by means of threats, intimidation and the use of “pickets,” a boycott declared against the Nevada Stables. In its effect upon industrial conditions no more sweeping decision has been rendered on the Pacific Coast. The Judge’s opinion enters exhaustively into the right of organizations to boycott, and points to the long line of authorities that declare the boycott illegal. Continuing, the decision divests the union of its one remaining defense—the act of 1903; which was passed at the demand of the labor leaders, and which prohibits courts ot equity from interfering by injunction to restrain combinations of men in trade disputes from committing acts which, if done by one person, would ot be criminal. This statute, the court holds, is class legislation and unconstitutional. This decision, if upheld by the Supreme Court, will go far toward preventing Judge Hunt Declares Statute Divesting Tribunals of, Right to Inte fere in Industrial Strife Unconstitutional and Void. at all, but wers boarded and lodged within it. Subsequently, under the protection of a police officer, they werd escorted restaurant, but even then they were occasion- ally followed and menaced by pickets. Upon one occasion an employe of plaintift was attacked by two men and knocked down; one of his employes was followed to his home and struck with a rock, and another was ap- proached by some of the pickets and urged to join the union; upon his refusal to do 5o he was informed that he would be ‘‘finished.”” One of the health ordinances of the city for- blds rtable-keepers allowing manure to ac- cumulate upon their premises, and requires its removal with reasonable expedition. When the plaintiff, in compliance with that law, sought to securs men to remove the manure from his stable, they were dissuaded from doing s0 by the pickets, and it was only under police protection that plaintiff, after several days, was enabled to perform a duty imposed upon him by law and sanitary considerations. A dealer in hay who visited plaintiff during the strike to obtain orders was requested by some of the pickets not to sell to the plaintiff; they suggested to him that if plaintiff could not procure feed his horses would starve, and when the dealer refused to consider the in- human proposition he was threatened that if he continued to deal with plaintiff he would be_boycotted In his business. turning to plaintiff's stable were at times fdghtened by the crowd which sur- rounded It, and one patron of plaintiff, on that account, was compelled to enter the stable from the rear. Frequently the shouts of the pickets were boisterous, thelr manner menacing and thelr language opprobricus and threaten- ing. In conssquence of the boycott plaintiff was harassed and annoyed, his business was in- jured, be lost weveral customers, he was un- able to hire out his hacks and road vehicles for lack of drivers and was compelled to send twelve of his horses to pasture. BOYCOTT IS DEFINED. The courts generally hold that the ‘‘boy- cott” is iliegal; it has been thus held in Vir- ginia, 84 Va. 927; New Jersey, 53 N. J. Eq. 01; Kansas, §3 Fed. Rep. 912 Michigan, 118 Mich. 407; Massachusetts, 167 Mass. §3; Hli- nots, 101 Ill. App. 355, and in Minnesota, 45 Fed. Rep. 135. This action was brought to obtain a perma- ment injunction against the defendants, the Stablemen’s Union and others, to restrain them from continuing the ‘“‘boycott.” Upon filing the complaint a restraining order was issued enjoining defendants from interfering with plaintif’s business, from picketing his promises and from molesting or intimidating any of his workmen or patrons. Upon the ser- vice of the restraining order the ‘‘boycott” ceased. The cause was tried and submitted and the facts herein before enumerated were proven by overwhelming evidence. There is no testimony, however, implicating the defend- . E. Maza and John Killian, and as to Jetencunts the action is dismissed. to and from a only question of 1&W to be determined, The de- fendant’s counsel claims that the plaintiff’s remedy, If any, must be sought, either In a criminal proceeding or in a civil action for dumages. In_ respect to the former clatm it is to be noted that @ Wrongful act is, in re- spect to its nature, either a public offense or 2 private injury; but, in respect to_remedial consequences, it may be both. The State may punisi a wrongdoer by imprisonment, but that circumstance in no wise impairs the civil remedy “of the aggrieved party. In ex parte 158 U. S., 091, the United States Su- preme Court say: ‘‘When there is an inter- ference, actual or threatened, with property Tighis of @ pecuniary mature,” the jurlsdiction of equity arises, and Is not destroyed by the fact that such mcts are accompanied by, or are themselves, violations of a triminal law.” In this case the answer admits that, if the fendants are not restrained, the plaintiff's business will be completely destroyed. For such a wrong the Penal Code affords the plain. Gff no remedy. The criminal law cannot recompense plaintiff for loss sustained, canmot Testrain others from committing like acts, can- not enjoin the union from continuing the boy- cott, nor can it prevent a threatened injury to_hie mromerty. Would a civil suit for damages avail the plaintiff? In this case the answer admits that the defendants are financially irecsponsible. ence @ money ent against them would be unavailing. Furthermore, a proceedings would involve & sufts. There ggg €00’ members of the defend- ant's union, several hundred of whom must bave participated in the “‘boycott” of plaintiff; the number and personnel of the participants, ‘howevcf. was mfi-n&lz c‘l:l‘:lint. I;l the morn- or two, rnoon_four ng one + —_— 7. 1908 FORGE BOYGOTT AGAINST EMP MAGUIRE {QUESTIONS SOUNONESS OF THE DECISION ¢ ¢ | DO not question the abstract principles of individual liberty, | | justice and equality before the law to which he refers as the ; basis of his conclusions and judgment; but I do not think | that he’ has satisfactorily disposed of the act of the Legislature for- ‘ bidding the issuance of injunctions in such cases. If the testimony é of certain witnesses of the plaintiff was true it showed that crimes | had been committed by individuals which should be punished ac- cording to the provisions of the penal statutes, and an injunction should not be issued to restrain the commission of crimes. The de- | fendants are anxious to have the constitutionality of that statute | | finally and conclusively determined, and I believe that members ot labor unions generally share that desire. Iam of the opinion that | the matter will not be permitted to rest on the opinion of Judge e s e — Hunt, but that an appeal will be taken to the Supreme Court.”— - l % ¥ & ] PROML\'?'\" L ;‘;\}'\:‘:ER “-HDV REP- i J. G. Maguire, counsel for the Stablemen’s Union. | EESENTED REFEATED K UNNNE DAT OF PEACE AT STOCKYARDS { Strikers Forget Their Trou- bles and Participate in a Parade and a Pienie ON BANK ENDS IONS FAR REACHING | | Police Seeking Persons Who Cirenlated False Reports to Alarm the Depositors [ — CHICAGO, Aug. 6.—The stockyards strikers forgot their animosities and | troubles to-day long enough to join in r' fa peaceable demconstration, the first |:im:e the strike was called, nearly foar | weeks ago. In a street parade several | miles in length fully 25,000 strikers | their families encircled the stoc! | district, marching to music from a dozen bands. The demonstration end- to enforce the authority of the union, and 0 | e with a picnic at Oswald’'s Grove. dictate to plaintiff whom he should, and whom | (yhjle these events were in progress he should not, employ. That the plaintif | ¢hore wag peace and quiet around the was injured in his property rights cannot be | i Sainsaid; that the acts of defendants, if con- | U5 Packing plants at the stockyards. | | | | in the proceedings to a less obnoxious degree than otgen, some were present oftemer than others, somé employed opprobrious epithets and othery 814 _not. But, even |5 the ‘g..rflclel:ht.: known, it woul prov amou the act of each In- amount of damage which ed his | The run on the Drovers’ Trust and dual occasioned; were deter- | tinued, would have ultimately destroy | o ‘S}’é& it would still b:"neemm“ Lo - business, is admitted. If defendant’s acts were | S2Vings Bank came to an end to-day. commence | several hundred suits and engage in a litiga- tion which, in any ‘event, would be barren of al results, in consequence of the im- of the parties. It must be appar- ent, therefore, that an action for damages would afford plaintiff no remedy. REMEDY OF INJUNCTION. Now, it is a cardinal rule of equity jurls- prudence that, where injury to property is threatened by the acts of parties who are un- able to respond in damages, or where the re- dress of an Injury will occasion a multiplicity of suits, or where the da resuiting is irreparable, a court of equity will furnish the injured party the only remedy that can avall Several small depositors withdrew their money in the morning. The police are endeavoring to discover the identity of the persons who were responsible for the circulation of anonymous letters and circulars which caused the run on the institution. L — e — Y it appiles only to a particular class and makes employes the Immunes of the law. The constitution of the State provides that no citizen, or class of citizens, shajl be graat- ed privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not be granted to all efti- unlawful, the law presumes that their intent | was unlawful; and the set of 1903 could not and does not, sanction & combination to ac- complish an umlawful act. | But, aside from these considerations, I am | of opinfon that the act in question, In so far | as it attempts to deprive courts of equity of | the power to issue injunctions, in cases of “trade disputes,” is unconstitutional, for the | following First. reasons: It violates that provision of our State constitution which declares that “ail men have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending remedy of injunction. i B TR g and ' sane = protecting property.” This provisicn is con- | = ¢ Hence it ‘follows that the pivotal question | tained in the Deciaration of Rights, and It | miced b an eibniora e Of were com: by an organization of men, between whom and the plaintiff the reiation of em- ployment never existed, the plaintiff's right to equitable relief would be undoubted; but, um- der this provision, if ome or more of his employes, in combination with others, com- mit these acts, the equitable remedy does mot exist. In my opinicn there can be no support for such legislation, undermining and destroying as it does, a constitutional right. PROVISION IS VOID. in the case is this: Is the plaintiff entitled to an injunction? Defendant's counsel claims that he is not so entitled; that, even If the defendants cannot respond in damages, even if the injury done, or threatened to be done, was, or is, irreparable in its nature, even if a multiplicity of suits would be occasioned, and even If the pecuniary damage sustained by plaintiff would be difficult of ment, still a court of equity cannot enjoin the acts " complain use an act of Legislature of this State from forever safeguards the rights of persons and the rights of property. Freedom is of the Spirit and essence of the Constitution; but | freedom thus guaranteed to the citizen no more implies a license in one man or in any combination of men to harass or injure an- other in the pursuit of his lawful business, than it implies a license to deprive him of his personal liberty. The Constitution alike protects natural freedom and industrial free- | lom. If the right of the March 20, 1903, doing so. (See Statutes 1903, p. is inalienable the property Third—The provision in question is void be- forbids 1t right of labor is inviolate. In Billings vs. | cause it seeks to deprive the Superior Court .) o f is ler- | Hall. 7 Cal. 7, the Supreme Court of this |of a judicial prerogative conferred upon it That act, in some "Jh g 1872, | State. commenting upon the constitutional | by the constitution. The constitution pro- :’lgd:.fluu lr::: ‘:r‘l’m?n’fl";on:;‘l::t‘l’e: Botn p;vv;‘-llon in qnlntlnn. refers to it as “ome of jes that he Superfor Court shall Bl Gty theThove act, pro- | the fundamental principles of .mngx.mw:‘::u:;;y sdiction of all cases in equity.”” -If th t no asreement, contract or combi- pation, by two or more persons, to do, or to procure to be dome, an act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between an employer and an employee, shall be criminal; nor shall those engaged therem be indictable or punishable for the crime of conspiracy, If Legislature can deprive a court of equity of the right to issue an & like this then it could deprive it of the right t> issue an injunction in any case; it could absolutely divest the court of what is and always has been one of its most potent rem- edies, thus nullifying its powers and making rigorous which there could be neither liberty nor safety | to the citizen. If one of the primary objects of government is to enable the citizen to ac- quire, possess and defend property, how can it be impaired by legislation™" The right to labor is a right of property, and the duty highest off on in = case of R i to protect it is the it office of our impotent its decrees. o puskneois ae s orime T Thex Toows a | 18ws. Detendant's counsel upon this point relies = ABO! OST upon the Wright case, 2 and_the Petnea b the Engiicn. statite, to " the effect SB35 SACRED. Spreckels case 117 Cal. 377. In each of those In 127 Cal 13, the Supreme Court quotes with “approval ‘the following extract from State vs, Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179: property which every man has in his own | labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, =0 it is the most sacred and inviolate.” Hence no syndicate of employers, or union of employes, can bar one of the right to labor, for the right to labor is the right | to live: but how can it be said that a right | is inviclate If, when violated, the law affords ? For the law to declare a right, | my it all means of enforcement, | cases one court sought to enjoin judicial pro ceedings in anether court and, in each I stance, it was held that the court was po erless to make such an order. In the Wright case the court held that the Legislature may restrain the judicial power to enjoin, “when. by statutory changes, some right ceases to exist and in cases of equitable cognizance which no longer arise.”” This case does mot fall within either of the “above classes. Ths right of property, granted to the plaintiff by the™ constitution is nof right which has ceased to exist; mor h he cases in which an injunction is necessary in order to pre- | vent & multiplicity of actions ceased to be | cases of equitable cognizance. It is undoubtedly true that the Legislature. in these cases, may alter, or that such combination shall not be considered as In restraint of le; “mor shall any re- strai order or injunction be issued in re- lation to: provided that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize force or violence or threats thereof.” In this case, the Droofs, as we have seen, dantly show threats, force and violence: nevertheless, defendant’s counsel contends that a court of equity is prohibited from issuing injunctions in cases of ‘‘trade disputes’” be- tween employer and employe; and that the legisiative declaration against threats, force or violence is applicable only to the subject of conspiracies; and that no matter what force or Intimidation ‘“is practiced upon the employer, by the employe, in a trade dispute” equity s powerless 10 relieve by injunction. Plaintiff's counsel contends that, if the act of 1903 admits of such a construction, it is pnconstitutional. It is to be observed that the act in question no ? and then des would be to “Keep the word of promise to our ear, . And break it to our hepe.” G W regevno) Mo or .t | aF e netl e law; for it is one of its oldest -and best e i nd proced: lega maxims that, “Where there i a wrong, there | "SUlate, remedies and procedure. logal or is a remedy.”” Hence when a property right | Sauitable, but 1 { 1 tive nor can it defeat the enforge- 1% wiolated, and the common law affords the | L7, 758"y constitutional right by depriving Do _remed 5 e is in the nature of criminal legislation; It Te- | yens o Fedce o e Uy il Inter- | the injured party of the only that the PIAIDtI - equitable relief for the invasion of | 1%, a7 sward for it vication. Thls cee opera. < y one u . {tion of a penal statute. tor in- | bie TISEts of property is to deny Dim due ! ihe reasons already stated: and, in 24th Cal. Stance, that an act which Is not & crime, when e Sundamentat | 4op, Supreme Court deciared that that H ters of equitable cognizance powers i by the constitution, camnot be taken | away by legal enactment.” For each and all of the reasons herein be fore stated. I am of the opinion that. in so fac &= the Nehistive act in oemtion aitemuts committed by one, is not criminal when com- mitted by many. Now an act may be uniawful without being & crime, for one is a private injury, ihe other a public nse MANY CANNOT EXCUSE WRONG. at all Second. The provision In question is special legislation, inasmuch as it is not of uniform | operation: urder it litigants do not stand | SNAE RN e T, S s tee tiat | deprive a court of of the power to But if the act done be unlawful, and dam- | seestimes - - Dature of things. ' jssue injunctions in cases of this character, | it is unconstituti age is occasioned thereby, it avalls nothl f ul differences, either defined The defendants rely entirely upon under the common law, Whether the Wrong- | in the Constitution or Ratural in themseives. | tho el T Lt was ther ‘event, the law awards re- | O which suggest a reason which might nat- | gion in question. As I sustain their gfimfion: in_ei Gnd all, of (he offenders, | Urally be held to justify a diversity of Hti- ! contentlon in that r it_follows that, in egard. ress against one. . jeast | 52! 2 consonance with the views herein . R T s il e toy In_Joboson vs. Goodyear Co.. 137 Cal. 7. |a decree shouid be entered in faver of plain- o e o the attempted to confer uponm the | (I as prayed fur. It is empicyes of @ corporation certain legal rights. | that plaiatiff is entitled to a final decrse of able element in y, combinations or { Which other did pot possess: and injunction against the remaining defendants, unlawful assemblies. The threat which, if j e 1aw, upon that account, was held uncon- | in’ substantial accord with the restraining orli uttered by one, might be innocuous, if uttered | Stitutionak. der granted herein and counsel wi by many may well serve to Intimidate. The provision prepare a decree accordingly. this case a single picket, g in is special legislation, because, marching in frout “‘trade dispute, it denies t ld not be regarded 3 o le vemedy which it -c-l"' —_— ¥ of plaintiff's premises, coul employers an equitabl % tion tree! could to the ploying class: it applies —— °i.‘f‘.".’=°--m:"’-m u'-e l‘:’ly'!"mz. wn?: to ‘“trade disputes” a-rule not applicable to A variety of articles FOR other disputes: one class of property, and one SALF in the Miscellaneous Ads. plain of property owpers, under certain conditions 5 Engines to Sewing Ma- T his . m‘;fi and were & nul. | may obtain eouitable relief, which, under the Gas Engl bargains . that - e P A ¢ g e gt e g may interest you. X ners. " The e e S B Yot Soverst WALIS | Swnme ok woul cotdie’ 1o cntitiad 0" b injumes N namber of MISCELLANE- OUS WANTS, too. Perhaps you fill the needs. | "l cannot be assumed that this aggresa- possession: but, under this legislation, th Shon ere ‘seaiing o, Obtaln the Pleces Which | man. who Ows & busness, like condi- | | cam w-mmmm tions, is denied like relief. on the contrary, their purpose was The provislon is spectal