Morning journal and courier., 1886-07-19

"A combination and az cement between two l or more persons to injure the business of said company for the sole purpose of causing said company, on account of such injury, and for l no other reason, to discharge their employees, is criminal agreement and conspiracy. D That is right. It constitutes the destruction that have already stated to you.
 Another request to charge was, in sub stance, that it was criminal and indictab1e
 conspiracy for conspirators to combine to
 compel man to do what he had a legal right to refuse to do, and solely because he refused to go to work to break up his business, or to damage 1t so far as to compel him to submit to do what they had demanded. To this the court demurred as indefinite.
 The last request was, in substance, to charge that if in the case last above stated, in addition to the conspiracy mentioned, the conspirators also were combined to make the man whose business they were inj turing pay the expenses of boycotting, that in such case the conspiracy became highly criminal To this the judge said that he had sufficient ly charged in the case. He had, he added, stated to the jury the lines of demarcation in the case. A word as to the evidence. There had been no conflict of evidence as to what the purpose of the combination was and it was therefore for the jury to de- term1ne the question he had raised as to whether the combination existed for legal or illegal purpose. As to the money demand in the case, the court held that definite or precise demand for money was not claimed on the part of the State, but that it was stated in general way two or more of the accused parties had associated themselves together and stated that they would treat the COURIER worse than they had the News. That they then referred the Darlington Pub fishing company to the way they treated the News. of whom a specific money demand was made to pay the expenses of boycotting evidenced in two three papers, and that the demand was made by commit tee or which one or more of the present defendants were members. On the other hand 1t was claimed that the expression that Glidden and the other members of the committee made use of to the Darlington Pub
 fishing company was not capable of being construed as an intention to make & money demand like that made upon the News, but was only to impress the fact that they had made the News submit, and that these de- fendants did not intend to exact penalty but simply to use such pressure as would make the COURIER submit; that finally the idea Glidden and the committee intended officially to convey was the effect of the boy colt as instanced in the News case. This the court said was for the jury to sift and de- termine. The court added that it was alleged by the accused here, that they lad a right in the News boycott to demand of the News the payment of their expenses and that they therefore had legal right to demand that money. The court held that if there was 8 contract between the News and the union in reference to the employment of union men and the contract was broken then the ac cused might have lawfully demand ed payment of the expenses incurred to con- pei the News to keep it's contract, and such case could not apply to the COURIER case. There is some other evidence claimed by the State which tends to show that the necessary demand was intended to be made as against theCoURrER. Thisyou will also consider. Which few words admonishing the jury to care fully weigh the case, the court gave the case to the jury.