The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-07-11
EARNCLIFFE MILLS.


Continued from Page one.)
upon said night work. and who have
been induced 10 enter the employ of rec
spondents upon the supposition that
they were to be given work for a con-.
siderable time. Respondents have also
produced the afiidavits OF a large num-
Der OF persons who live near said mills,
many OF them within less than 100 feet
thereof Ca number OF whom are tenants
OF the complainant. Whipple), To the
effect that said persons do not suffer
any discomfort, annoyance or incon-
venience by reason of the running of
said mills at night.
In this state OF the evidence are
the complainants clearly entitled 10
preliminary injunction restraining the
respondents from running their mills
at night until final hearing of the
case can be hsi in the fall, by the full
court2 | think not. y very strong
ease indeed. and one of great emer-
gency. ought 10 be shown in order To
warrant a court thus summarily tn in
terfere with such an important indus
try To grant the injunction would
practically amount TO determining the
only question in the case-that OF
whether the running OF said mills ut
night is nuisance--in advance, and
not 10 leave the parties in statu quo
until the final hearing. IL is true. as
above stated. that the evidence Of
fered by complainants shows that they
are suffering inconvenience and INJURY
from the running of the mills.
But. on the other hand, il also ap-
pears that the granting OF the motion
would cause very graat Inconvenience
and irreparable injury, not only 10
the respondents. but also 10 those I'm
their employ. And the rule rs that
where. upon a balancing OF the incon-
Veniences. the court can readily see
that more harm would result from the
granting OF the motion than from the
refusal thereof, Ii viii leave the parties
in the situation i'm which il iinds them,
until their legal rights shall have been
established. ] think IL Is clear in this
case that the inconvenience and injury
which would result TO the respondents
and their numerous employees by grant
ing the motion would he much greater
than the benefits which would accrue
10 the complain9nts. l do not wish To
be understood, however. by making
this comparison az minimizing the
complainants grievances. for | recog-
nize that they have rights in the prem
ises and that those right are entitled In
the careful consideration of the court.
Il
considering the rights of both parties.
as / am about 20 do, IL is very evident
that the stopping Of respondents mills.
as prayed, and therefore by throwing
a large number of operatives. who are
dependent on their daily bread, out of
employment, together with the great
pecuniary loss which will result TO the
respondents thereby, would be far
greater inconvenience and injury than
will result to the complainants by per-
hitting the mills To run until the case
can be heard upon it's merits. Rhode
Island is pre-eminently manufactur
ing state. Mills, manufactures and
workshops or almost every kind abound
in our midst and represent the largest
and most important industry OF the
state, and their operation sh0ufd not Dc
interfered with in this summary way
except in cases OF great emergencies.
II fail 10 see that any such emer
gency exists in this case and hence 1
must deny the motion for a prelimin
airy injunction. Motion denied"