Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-20

risk in the course OF their business. But sup
pose they had combined and confederated to-
rather to prevent and in pursuance thereof had
Drey erted other insurance companies or other
persous from insuring and taking risks on
ployed for the purpose of depriving him of en-
I,loyment? In such case they wou d hSye been
liable such is the effect Of the decision in
Dickson VS.. Dickson, decided by the same
Court from which we have already quoted
passage
ton of the authorities have reached the con.
clusion that the acts of the defendants Gverred
in the complaint are unlawful. aud an illegal
interference with the property ana an infringe
ment upon the rights of the plaintiff, ana 1t
only remains 20 consider whether Tellef can be
e anted by Injunction
In the case OF Sherry VS.. Perkins l47 Mass.
OBJ a case like the one now before this Court
the Court said: The wrong is not, as argued
NV the defendsnt's counsel libel upon the
plaintiffs business. It is Lot found that the
inscriptions upon the banners were false, nor
do they appear to have been IN dispa'agement
of the plaintiff S business. The scheme IN pur
suqnce of which the banners were displayed
and maintained, were to iDjure the plaintiffs
business, not by defaming IL to the pubic. but
nv iutimidsting workmen, so as to deter them
from keeping or making engagements with the
plaintiffs The banner was standing menace
10 all who were or wished to be in the employ
ment Of the plaintiffs. to deter them ON enter
ing the plaintiff premises. Maintaining it was
a continuous unlawful act, Injurious TO The
plaintiffs business and property, and was
nuisance such as Court OF equity VIII grant re-
lief against.
The case OF Brace Bros. vs. Evans, already re-
ferred TO ia this opinion is an authority for an
Injunction in this case. There complain. in
equity alleged that number OF persons had
combined to prescribe the plaintiffs business
by boycottpg him, and requesting Others to
do So By threatening the parties dealing with
him that they in turn will be boyeotted or
proscr4b bed, and by following his wagons
through the streets with requests to the public
TO boycott him, and as result of these acts the
plaintiffs business had fallen off greatly and
was threatened with entire destruction; and
the Court upon those facts held that equity
would enjoin the parties so conSpiriDg 10 injuie
plaintiffs from continue nee of these luxurious
and threatened acts At the conclusion of the
opinion the Court said: ut is alleged in the
complaint that the defendants are irresponsible
and il is not denied. Though insolvency alone
is not sufficient grounds for granting an juno
ton, when equltseie circumstances exists, 1t is
a moving consideration. II there were any
doubt OF the propriety ofissuinS an injunction it
would be resolved by consideration of the
circumstances OF the parties. Where clear
case of iTrepar6ble injury Is shown as likely to
result to complainant unless the injunction is
granted. and it does not appear that the issuing
of the writ viii work any Injury to the defend
ants relief will be granted, and this seems TO
be the situation of the parties in this cause "
And l may add, it seams to be the
situation OF the parties nov before the Court.
What injury can result 10 the defendants if
they are restrained from doing the acts averred
in the complaint? They can derive no benefit
from those acts The acts are unlawful How
can the defendants be injured by being re-
strained from doing unlawful acts? The only
object for committing the acts by the defend
ants is to enforce the decree of the Council of
Federated Trades to the injury OF the plaintiffs
but those DEGREES are under the ban of the law,
and they have no legal right to enforce them
by boyco;ting the plaintiff or otherwise SO they
sustain no damage or legal injury by being re-
strained. In the case of the Springfield Spin
nj company vs.. Riley, Bow Rep, Equity
6e1 IL aunparpH tn II the Defendants lVhO
were officers OF trades union, gave notice to
worsmen, by means of placards and advertise
ments, that they were not to hire themselves to
the plaintiffs pending a dispute between the
union and the plaintiffs The plaintiffs prayed
for an injunction restraining the issuing of the
placaEds and advertisements, alleging that by
means of III N he defendants had, in fact, in
undated and prevented workn n from hiring
themselves to the plaintiffs, and that the plain
tifs were thereby prevented from continuing
their business and the value of their property
was seriously injured and materially dimin-
ished; and the Court decided that the acts
were unlawful and proper subject for relief in
equity.
In this State final Injunction will be granted
where pecuniary compensation would not at-
lord adequate relief, or when it would be ex-
tremeiy difficult to ascertain the amount of
COMPENSATION which would afford adequate re-
lief" Civil Code, Section 3I22 The facts
averred in the complaint brings this case within
this rule es. ablished by the Code. y provis
ional injunction in case where final injunc-
ton may uS, Is uSuHlIN STdutSu OF TelustQ III
the SOUND discretion OF the Court, and the ruls
is that this discretion should always be exer-
cised in favor of the party most liable 10 be in
jured. Hicks vs.. Compton, Is Cal. 2C6; High
The learned counsel for the defendants con-
tend that the def ndants may speak, write or
print whatsoever they will, and that this is a
constitutional right, and they cite il support of
their contention Section Of Article of the
Constitution. l cannot yield assent to this |
pros osition. The language of the constitution |
is that every citizen may freely speak, write |
and publish his sentiments all subjects being
responsible for the abuse OF that right, and no |
law shall be passed TO restrain or abridge the |
liberty of speech or OF the press" If
rights, such as good will OF business or |
personal character by speaking, writing or pub |
fishing his sentiments, it is an abuse Of his |
right TO freely speak, write ana publish his |
sentiments, and he is responsible for such |
abuse. This is the meaning of the Constitution; |
otherwise it is in conflict with the first section
of the same article OF the Constitution, which |
declares that "all men are by nature free and |
independent and have certain inalienable |
rights, among which are those of enjoying and |
defending his lie and liberty; acquiring, |
possessing and protecting property; and pursu- |
ing and obtaining safety and happiness" II |
the defendants may freely speak, write and |
publish threats 10 boycott the plaintiffs and de-
slrOy their business by means thereof, under |
the shield of Section of this article of the |
Constitution, then the provision which guaran- |
tees the right 10 all persons TO acquire, possess
and protect properly IS snare anu q ueIuslOu. |
Such construction would make the Constitu- |
ton potential for evil and power. ess for good.
But the Constitution cannot receive any such |
construction as commended for. 1t does not con
fer The right upon any person or combination Of
persons 10 boycott any person or his business
aud those who do it are wrong doors. If the in
jury TO the property of person or infringement
upon his rights would be irIeparable, whether
the injury results from speaking writing CT
publications. a Court CT equity will restrain
the wrong doors from committing the act
It is not necessary that the speaking
writing or publications should amount to libel
to be within the law OF remedial justice if the
speaking, writing or publications cause injury
10 the pr perty or business + another. TINS is
the principle upon which Sherry VS.. Perkins
was decided, from which I have quoted a
passage. This IS a case of that impression and
Il follows that provisional injunction must
;ssue as prayed for in the complaint against the
defendants Let an order be prepared and sub
mitted to the Court. The amount OF the usual
undertaking is fixed at $500.
Trl0 m