The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-30
NO CAUSE FOR ACTION
The Allegations Were Altogether
Too General.
THE INJUNCTION DENIED
Plaintiffs Will Be Allowed to Amend
Their Complaint in the Case OF H.
L. Haupt Against the
Labor Assembly.

The boycott injunction suit which H.
l.. Haupt and the World Messenger
| company brought against the Silver
Bow Trades and Labor assembly, the
JOB and Express union and officers of
the two organizations, fell just, a lit
tie short of what Haupt had expected
when the order to show cause why a
temporary injunction should not be is
sued was presented to Judge Smith
yesterday. Haupt had some trouble
| over wages with the members of the
Job and Express union, and the Silver
| Bow Trades and Labor assembly took
up the controversy. Haupt then went
| into court with a complaint that the
defendants named had threatened to
compel his employees to quit work, to
force merchants and others to cease
patronizing his messenger system, and
Ito destroy his call boxes and other
property, and he wanted the court to
enjoin the defendants from carrying
out their threats. When the order to
show cause came up yesterday morn
ing John N. Kirk, attorney for the de-
PENDANTS, filed an answer for the de-
PENDANTS Dan Mcdonald. Charles May
nard, w. N. Holden and M. j. Geiger,
making a general denial of conspir-
acy and threats to injure Haupt's bust
ness or compel his employees to quit
working for him. The defendants also
filed affidavits making the same de-
malls. The plaintiffs attorneys, o. NJ.
Hall and George w. Clark, wanted to
present their case on oral testimony,
but Mr. Kirk objected The court,
however, decided to permit the plaintiff
to produce witnesses, and H. l.. Haupt,
| -tAts = 4
company, was put on the witness
stand and was asked if he had had a
conversation with Charles Maynard
| and Others regarding his employment
of help. Mr.. Kirk objected to the in
PRODUCTION of any testimony on the
ground that the defendants aff1davits
set up no new matter and that the
plaintiff would have to stand on his
complaint, which had the effect of an
affidavit for the purposes of the hear
ing.
During the argument that followed,
the court itself raised the question as
to whether the complaint stated a
cause of action, because it alleged no
overt act on the part of the defend
ants. The plaintiffs attorneys then
presented authorities to show that it
was not necessary to wait until the
conspirators had actually committed
an overt act and damage before an
injunction should be asked for. In the
last railroad strike the federal coIrt
held that a conspiracy of strikers was
itself Illegal. 8t
Judge Smith expressed the opinion
that the railroad strike case and other
cases referred to by the attorneys wire
not in line with the case Def re the
court. In Mr.. Haupt's complaint, lie
said, there were no allegations except
those relating to threats in a general
way without any attempt to show that
the defendants tried to carry them
into effect, or that they even went so
far as to try to induce any of the
plaintiffs men to quit work.
IF the court please" said Mr. Hall,
1--WE are prepared to show that the
defendants threatened to employ 1CO
men to tear out our call boxes ari
destroy our wires. After the damage
is done it will be too late TO ask TO.
an injunction"
IF you will allege in your complaint
and give me evidence that the de: end
ants have employed me man TO 90
that work. l will issue an injunction,
l care nothing for the other 99''
Mr.. Hall, however, thought his eeE-
eral and sweeping allega ions of a
conspiracy and threats were sufficient
Before the hearing proceeded farther
Mr. Kirk withdrew his affidavits and
the court decided that The complaint
did not state facts sufficient to con-
SsStqts "a cause of action. The Judge
SAID .,stt,Sfssscourt could not presume taat
the defsndants had the power 10 COM
pei the Plaintiffs employees 70 quit his
employ or to force merchants 10 cease
patronizing him. If such facts we've
alleged properly in the complaint the
court could grant the injunction. At
the request of Mr.. Kirk the order to
show cause was dissolved and the de-
PENDANTS were discharged, but an CO.
der was made allowing the plaintiffs
to amend their complaint.