The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-05

| hurts u IL Il TO be said a Is not hablcF
| Two next door neighbors. in \ thickiy
| populated city. have their houses bulls
| upon twenty feet for each. with their
| back porchcs fronting 20 each other. so
that q noise upon one penetratcs every
part OF the other house. A. the occupant
| OF ono. loves fhe music Of hand organ
He has an undoubied right to grind the
hand organ on bis back porch while he
Is enjoying it's music. even II II does
bring discomfort 10 his nciehbor. But +.
the occupant OF The next house, IS IN a
highly nervous state so that the noise o.
a hurdy-gurdy causes him the utmost dis
iress. A Is his enemy and hates him with
a mortal hatred. Has he right 10 hire
an Italian 70 grind his hand organ on
his back porch all day long and day after
day for the purpose of torturing and
possibly ending his life. Our laws would
be no more than a mockery II they could
tolerate such conduct. We cannot be-
leve for moment that the English
courts will adopt tho views OF the Law
Lords in this case. or that the American
courts will ever abandon a principle that
has been recognized by many OF them
ever since we have had Jurisprudence.
In delivering his opinion Lord Watson.
discussing the proposition, used the fol-
lowing language:
even In that moro limited application
II would lead, in some cases, 10 singular
results. One who committed an act not
In itself illegal. but attended with conse-
quences detrimental TO several other per
sons would incur liability TO those OF
them whom It was proved that he in
tended 10 injure. and the rest OF them
would have no remedy. A master who
dismissed a servant engaged from day 10
day. or whose contract Of service had
expired. and declined 20 give him further
employment because he disliked the man
and desired 20 punish him would be liable
in an action Cor tort"
Lord MocNaghten in delivering his opin-
ION upon the point says.
Suppose q man takes a transfer oi
debt with which he has no concern ior
the purpose OF running the debtor, ana
then makes him bankrupt out OF splle
and so Intentionally causes him 10 lose
some benefits under a VIII or settlement
suppose a man declines to give a servant
a character because he is offended Win
The servant for leaving; suppose person
Of position takes away his custom from
q country fradesman in a small village
merely to injure him on account OF some
fancied grievance not connected Win
their dealings In the way Of buying ana
selling-no one. | think would suggest
that there could be any remedy at law III
any Of those cases.
These two extracts contain about the
whole of the real argument that was
made on that side Of the question.
II must be obvious TO any one that both
OF these judges put cases OF both passive
and active conducts. OF course there can
he no action against a man who dismisses
a servant engaged from day TO day. who
refuses to give q servant no longer IN ms
employment 4 character or who ceases
70 deal with a tradesman that he had
been dealing with, whatever his motive
might have been. lie was under no obi-
CATION TO do any one of these things ana
he might refrain from doing them at his
pleasure whether ne had clean mind
and heart or whether ne had bad, ma
ncious one. To sue him would be no
more than holding him responsible for
being black hearted man.
But is It clear that Lord Watson's man
who took positive action or Lord Mac
Naghten's who did the same would have
been free from liability?
The man who took action against those
he hated would have done an unlawful
thing. and IL a person he did not hate was
injured by his unlawful act, why should
he MOI be- liable 20 him? In the case OF
the fire orackc.s that we have put. if a,
in addition 90 frightening BIS horse had
also frightened that Of G and made it run
away and hurt G. why should he not an
swer 20 C. also? Ills act IN throwing the
fire crackers at Bs horse would have
been unlawful. and why should he not
answer for all the consequences OF his
unlawful act? And in the case put by
Lord McNaghten. why should not the
man who maliciously caused the other
one io lose his benefit under the will be
liable for malicious act. If he had taken
an assignment Of the debt in good faith
and suing for it had caused the debtors
ruin. It would have been damnum absGue
injurla. But If he was simply a volun-
tecr, meddling with the matter only TO
procure the debtors ruin. it seems TO us
that the case would be in no respect diff
fercnt from that Of the fellow popping
crackers.
We have made this Lengthy and criti-
cal examination of this case because IL is
far more than an ordinary law case. II
IS one Of those law cases which touches
the socin relations of man as a member
of society and the doctrine we have been
reviewing is vital to the peace and order
OF society in large industrial communi-
ties.
II irresponsible men are 10 be permitted
20 do in combination and with a malicious
motive whatever might be lawful when
done by one man with a good motive, nc
one can tell what disorders will arise
from it, But II the combined actions OF
men who act from bad motives are con-
dcmned by the law. then there is a most
wholesome restraint placed upon the mob.
1t is gratifying TO know that at least
two OF the Law Lords who constituted the