, 1870-04-11

valunleas. Al hia is admitted b5 their de-
mutsr, and Jet thsy insist that court Of
eq9ay nv no Jurisdiction 70 stop such injuries
md Prevent such consequences. have
atuasd equity Law to little purpose, il this is
not tae psccaae case that comes especially within
tbs Jurisdiction Of this court When course Of
ooEsaure is lnau81tated which Is in itself uu-
aas !ama, e. and Which. 20 long - it = pursued
Legitimate trade or busine4e Of another, I h4d
supposed, and still believe, that it VIA pe:r1-
1iaxty HltMn the province Of Court of Equity
TO restrain such acts. Whon gentlemen can
the means adopted to produce the result, 70
~ thsy be lawful, in which the Court Of Equity
has refused to Interfere. than viii show him
| : casa decided BY court whose 6peciai calling
must have been in some other line Of buai-
ness, l mean court whose decisions are
rocaved q authority here Of elsewhere:
| venture the assertion, that whenever such =
DECISION has been made, it has not been re-
ported IN the books, and never should be.
What roatteta it whether tho defendant plaees
= c1'eT before QUE door. day after day, to
w1tn IL people not to trade with US because
We a1e cheats, OF plAca1d1 notices through ths
COUNT! that We have the smallpox in our
store. or obst1ucts the way leading to our
premises, or sends notices to all our cnAtou-
ers that II they conaign grim to us it will
cost than i've dollars more per CAT th.n il
cent b another. and then, in violation Of L
plain Legal duty, refuses to deliver grsin when
consigned to us?
In either, our business Is intertercd With,
aad IN the iast and this case, it is absolutely
ruined In a1 the other instances mentioned,
and many more like them, the precedents are
abundant thst tho Court will interfere by in
| furious acs Then. Why not in flis What
dinercnee in point ct lsw, whether they strike
US With hickory club or L dog-wood7 The
injury il the Bane and 30 should be the
-
consequences, and not to the means and in:
i etrumeutaHt3e6 By ~Meh they aEo brought
7 about Ta1e the c4so Of Watson r. suthas-
!. fAnd- which counsel think is no authority II
support Of the Jurisdiction to grant this ~
junction: They say that case taats the eauit.
plain and adequate remedy 1t law
cordially Join h1ndB with than in thii
proposition. Then let Us 500 vhethar that
case is not precisely ike this in principle
against third party upon stock Of goods O
merchant. and he was restrained because !
scos4id break up tie compartments business
He had his action 1t lar Tor this violation o
. his rights. hut that the Court held to be made
quate, because in that action he could not nc
only for the simple value Of the goods taken
I, il hyorite object Of court OF equity +
protect and preserve legitimate business, 70
the loss Of which it Is impossible for court
! Law to estimate ths damages. Courts Of Ia
! cannot allow fos prospective profits, Of ,grsn
t it il that equity must interfere to protect an
> preserve that for the destruction Of whic
: courts Of law cannot accurately measure th
. damages. This is Why it is called is1eparabl
damAgea OF injury. Courts Of l.
snn01 1ep,. Adequately sopeass!s and count e; i
8 injury: II equity will protect the merclat
8 from the destruction Of his business by pr
{ scrvipg to him his stock Of goods, which eou]
Q be replaced in short time, will it not save +
= from the destruction Of our business, vhit
# can never be restored here, but compels us
. sbsoiutely abandon our property forever
+ uttesly yalueIesss What court Of law cou
u adequately measure the amount Of the dAr
; ages which We must Hustain b! the deat1uctit
q Of this business? " hat witness can testif
l. what Jury can estimate, what that businoss
: worth? How much profits ne can make in
u each year, and how many years it viii continl
+ prodtAbleS Because Of the utter impossible
y II Of estimating gucll da1nsges accurately. Il
II law positively foEbids any attempt to essima
them at III, and calls them speculati
y damages OF prospective profits, and ve
e properly leaves their protection to courts
re- adequate protection, BY preventing the wro
D. instead Of attempting to compensate for it.
T. ag1es with gentlemen that this is the test
Id equity Jurisdiction, and 70 far - know. I
r. I case las yet 10 be found where the court
t. refused its interference to protect from {
structton, OF oTcn injury, legitimate busiues
al by unlawful means. No stronger case is to
T. found in all the books than this, whcro t
c- na1aea used are 30 palpably in violation
both the common law and the etatute, and
he consequences, not only as clearly stated In
it bill, but rs manifest to the comprehension
"a eyery business mind. must be not . part
ho but total destruction Of legitimate a
lc- 1AudAble business, to foster md encours
p which is cminently to the good Of the p
y dncing ~ well as tho consuming classes OF
or community.
o. II the decree Of tho Superior Court is
he retsed, it will, OF courSe, be becsuse the bill
is on its face sufficient to entiu, u to an
tot junction, and I suppose it Hin tolis
On Court rill order the temporary
he junction which that Court should haye
1t dered, restraining the defendant from deliv
7er ing grain cousigned to Us st other places Il
tn our elevator. With this will fla the juR
Is cation Of tho proposed bail.
ss: J. .. CAroH,
elf OF counsel with the complainan