The Express.
London, England, 1868-07-31 00:00:00

Tllllll ) EDITION.

LA INTE(.Im:KNODI.--(rlitS I) LP.)

EQUITY COURT.
Vier.ilEtneellor Sir R. Malin•.)
.111iiiTANT TRADES UNION ()Age:.

Ilk; 'lNiillEkli EII'INNINO COMPANY (LINITIII,) r.
In ease, which Mao argued upon demurrer about
hut • . 'Mitt ago, his Honour gave judgment this morn.
Mike of the bill was to obtain an injunction to
e-trai., the defendants, John Riley and John Butter-
worth, :he president and eitcretary of en association called
•he (b. ettive Cotton Spinners and [self-acting Winders
Jul 'lamas' helium' Association, and a person
rsssrd tt.o-0.,105, a printer, of Oldham, from
rint,r,. and I übli,hing certain placards for the
~urrt. intimit:at.tig workmen from entering the
, .4 the plant ffs. The defendants had tiled de-
to the WI for want of equity, and for the
1-1 o f the denturror, all the allegations of the bill

re ai-nitted to be t ...tie. The plaintiffs carried on the
ein~. cif cotton-spaibing at Springhead Lees, near Old-
9a, d they tinted that. owing to change in the quan-
.y of e-tton iced in w,taling and spinning, they found it
mar -y to re-adjit•t their sede of wages; that, on the
-3rd of February !sat. a deputation from the winders
agreed to the change; and that on the 4th
f March it was alba concurred in by Messrs.
and Butt, rwo, th as nprisenting the Operatives'
V.-cc:A:on, w ho attr nded at the mill, and woro furnished
...th Lb,. fullest intormition. The visit took place in the
irnic7„ but uprn the return of the hands after dinner,
Le minders, at the instigation, as alleged, of Riley and
t.„,eterworth, gave notice of their intention to leave at
•h.e.piration of a week, and did leave on the 11th of
Nod.. It was stated that there were many persons
silting at the time to take their plum, and that
•,. p: event such persons entering the plaintiffs
• nployment, the defendants caused to be posted in the
:.,iglibourhood and to be inserted in the Manchester and

itibani newspapers the following notice :—" Wanted all
sell-withers to the Operative Cotton Spinners' &c. Associa-
not to trouble or cause any annoyance to the Spring-
n..•ad Spinning Company, Leeds, by knocking at the door
.1 their oaths until the dispute between them and the
-elf-acting winders is finally terminatei—Byspecial order."
Letters of remonstrance were addressed by tho plaintiffs' so-
iicitsr to Riley and Butterworth, but the publication of the
placards and advertisements continued, and the bill was
:horologe Sled. It was stated that the business of the

wormy waa of considerable magnitude, and that by the
t.+ of the defendants they were sustaining damage to the
%taut of 1781. a week, and the value of the good, will was
in jeopardy._

Mr. ("Guano and Mr. Ince appeared for the plaintiffs and
(nitro, Mr. Keene (of the common law bar), and
I liardswell represented the defendants.
Vice-Chancellor, after referring to the Act 6, Geo.
,rep. 129, which declared combinations of workmen
employers to be injurious to the trade and
carlll.loe of the country, dangerous to the c0m-
.... ity. and prejudicial to the interests of all
; and enacted that persons who by
. _ _ _ _

• 1,11,1`, intimidation. and molestation, kept others from
eseleyment should be liable to three months'
nopro....ssoot ; and also quoting the act of 1839, by
iii.orh a was provided that workmen combining
r floo- purpose of fixing the rate of wages, or regulating
.ir work, and endeavouring with that view peaceably
•i rrn,o,sot threats or intimidation to persuade others to
4.,.e from work. should not be deemed to be guilty of

,t ,tion within the meaning of the previous set, ex-

hia entire concurrence in Baron Bramwell's
;tem to the jury on the trial of the tailors last year
• r 1,. keting. The learned judge, in that case, laid
, u that any man was at liberty to endeavour to in-
.. tat•ra, by persuasion or otherwise, to enter into
leLation with him to keep up the rate of wages, or
; pgulate the manner in which their work was
:ducted, but directly he entered into a combination
..1) had for its object intimidation or violence, or to in-
!, note with the perfect freedom of others, it became an
are within the meaning of the Bth George IV. It was
u, therefore, that the printing and publishing of these
and advertisements admittedly for the purpose of
..tlntikl.din,g workmen from entering the service of the
...still, was a crime at common law, and punish-
!e by imprisonment, but if it amounted to
communion of a eriine only it was clear

46 this court had no jurisdiction. In a motion to
• strain the publication of letters, Lord Eldon said,
The publication of a libel is a crime, and I have no ju-
-:licticn to prevent the commission of a crime except in
c. WO relating to the protection of infants ;" and iu the
io ll.known Austrian note ease, " Emperor of Austria
% KOtisuth," Lord Campbell in giving judgment used
:: .se words, "I have no jurisdiction except it be a case
• i civil property which I am bound to protect."
abe jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was to protect
o verty, and it would interfere by injunction to stay any
; voccedings, whether connected with crime or not, which
.',tied to the destruction of property or to make it leas
. %noble or comfortable for use or occupation. The acts
• the defendant in this ease did tend to the injury and
..mate destruction of the plaintiff's property, and the
• A, therefore, bad the same jurisdiction to restrain
y• acts that it would have bad to restrain the pouring
• •• isious vapours into the plaintine' mill, interference
. •4. their ancient lights, or the building of a wall to pre-
. acmes to their works. The court would inter-
to prevent acts amounting to crime if they did
stop at crime, but went also to the destruc-
• ~r deterioration of the value of property, and there-
the demurrers in this case must be overruled. In
, ...t to this conclusion he desired to be understood aa
.••,:: nothing more than what appeared upon
• 101 l and the demurrers. He overruled the
•• .11.111 because the bill stated and the demurrers
. ited acts amounting to the dictruction of property.
• general question whether the court could in-

.
ie to prevent the unlawful issuing by workmen of
ards amounting to intimidation would probably be
idea et the 'aring of the cause, but according to the
of lleorge IV. all these proceedings were alike in-
.us to the persons concerned in them, and to the
:it large, and if the court had jurisdiction to pre-
-I,ee misguided men from the destruction of that
o was the source of their own livelihood he believed
.1.1 he found one of the most beneficial powers it bad
‘ereised. Considering the novelty and importance
•!uestion he should reserve the costs.

.11vfore Vice-Chancellor Sir G. M. Giffard.,
III: REARIZ TIN ErrarAxrso comPayr (waLm...ll
CABE ; 'lacuna's CASE; unnb's cAsz).
WrIS a motion on behalf of the official
• 1.. hare the !WWII of the three above-named

settledc; the hat of contributories. They were
.I'. fm, and had taken a leading part in the manage-
k arly in 1864 an increase of the capital by the
~I preference shares was proposed, and to these gen-
~•nu•
1,500 shares were allotted, only 3,254 being
la all.
• of Merin. Walter and Pember was that
anent to them wee made without their knowledge

but was shown-that they had invited
r •vvbscriptions, on the ground that 3,254 shares had
drunily isaurd, of which the shares held by Messrs.
" ••••,. l'ember. and Lewis formed part.
K°Y. Q.e.. and Mr. W. F. Robinson appeared for
• hysdlitor; Mr. Bruce, Q.C., and Mr. Rrooksbauk
' '•• 241. Ptutber; Mr. Haddon for Messrs. Lewis and
.ilwr
•

16, Vice-ehaneellor nettled all the three lIIIMC4 on the
t rntnhutoriem.
11r. North immured for &creditor's representative.
The Vlee-elitte.elh,r raid that he could not allow the
..,nto of am-lemma... 4. of a creditor's representative except-
ing
(41 proper "e. as.."Us I and on this occasion he might
have to.nteanl that tle• came would be properly brought
ttdott. the court. liquidator.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(111.101.• the Judge OrdillarY.)
I. \ fil ErRNMIL
Mr TT.
Whirh -r over for a.lditional evidence,
Se:o Aittional witurases, and the court
quote nisi NII it ...sts.
301,1t10N urn HAYNES.
Mr. l'ritrhani for Ili.. petitioner, a labourer, at Ifickle-
. "1' ir 1/.•11,Y. 11.. married the respondent in So-
nd io the following year thure wa"
• .1. .ouk.e.
lunu.n. 7'he r...spoislent had since lived withwithHaynes,
Nl4
11, Wilde made it eeree
...c.nclutled the bdusiness and the court rose for the

-
I:irr(st, which is now almost terminated
iS not only ev‘vtlent everywhere, but in
coanitats is finer in quality and larger is
"Lnif than that of test year, which was oonaitlored
tura
`4"4 au,at eatrasrdisary in the MU" ofagrioul.