The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-30
BRIEF FULL OF INTEREST
ATTORNEY BOWLING DISCUSSES
SOME IMPORTANT POINTS.
Questions Involved i'm COilier-Otte
Damage Suit-Other News
of the Courts.

Attorney Henry NJ. Bowling. who brought
a damage suit for Charles Collier against
Grocer Charles II. w. Otte, has filed brief
in the Superior Court In support of the con-
tentions set out in his complaint. Attorney
John Scott filed a demurrer to the COM
plant and Judge Carter yesterday heard
argument.
The case is of unusual interest to wage
earners and members of labor unions.
Charles Collier was employed by the In
dianapolis Chain and Stamping Company.
He bought groceries of c. H. w. Otte and
got in debt to the latter. Otte went to
Golfers employers and representing to
them that Collier owed him a bill of s2s
procured his discharge. it is claimed. In
his brief Attorney bowling says the ques-
tion raised by the demurrer is: HAS a
creditor legal right Intentionally. and
for the sole purpose of gratifying a person
al desire for revenge. to procure the dis
charge of his debtor from the employment
of a third party whom such creditor in
duces by direct persuasion to discharge
said employer
The brief says: 1--WE submit that the
defendant was not legally justified in his
acts because a mans trade or business
is his property and any wanton interfer-
ence Herewith, solely for the purpose Of
infiicting damage is wholly without legal
justification. Writers and courts unite in
declaring that the right to labor in a trade
or profession is species of property which
must be sacredly guarded by law"
The brief further asserts that the Legis-
lature of Indiana has, in its statutes on
blacklisting employees, shown its high ap-
probation of the sacredness of the right to
labor, unembarrassed by wanton interfer-
ence on the part of third persons. The
brief also says that, ain full accord with
the above citations and in recognition of
the right of every man to carry on his
trade free from wanton interference it has
been frequently decided that combination
formed for the purpose of instituting boy
colt against a persons business and there
by depriving him of his custom, is unlaw-
full. If an employers business is
protected by law from wanton interference
on the part of those whose sole object is
10 damage Ii, workingmans trade is
likewise protected. If the employer can
maintain an action for damage to his BUSH
ness by depriving him of employees so may
an employe maintain an action for damage
TO his trade by depriving him of an en-
ployer. Has capital the exclusive right to
the safeguard of the law, and Is labor left
to the mercy of wanton interference whose
sole obpect 1t is TO damage it, when, If the
same act had been directed against the
capitalists, substantial damages could be
recovered? If 1t Is unlawful to interfere
with the business of the Indianapolis Chain
and Stamping Company, or the grocer 8
trade of the defendant, for the sole pur-
pose OF entailing loss on these parties,
much more ought the plaintiff to find like
protection in the law against q causeless
and unreasonable interference which de-
prives him not only of a few customers or
a few employees, but of his very means Of
livelihood.
But again it may be argued that the
above cited cases involve interference by
threats, SANDER or intimidation while here
there was interference by persecution only.
To which L reply: What impor-
lance does the law attach to
the means wantonly employed to ef-
fectuate intended damage to the plain
tiff? Where a recovery was allowed in
the above cited cases it was not upon the
theory that the public peace had been
disturbed by the threat of SANDER or in
timidation, but the courts looked at the
damaging result (namely, the intended loss
to the plaintiffs business) and gave COM
penSation for that and not for the en-
ployment of any particular means. It is
the anticipated, designed result which rem
ders the act unlawful not the character
of the means employed to accomplish it.
COMMON RIGHT INFRINGED.
I'm cases where the defendant is per-
Hhttcu W iiiiiCl ddtidSNS lHtcnliODdlly duu
wantonly upon the plaintiff the defendant
has acted in the exercise of some positive
absolute right Not so in the present case.
The defendant has here infringed COM
mon right of the plaintiffs by going out
of his way in order to do it, namely, the
right to earn an honest days wages by an
honest days work. The plaintiff RECEIVERS If
he shows nominal actual damage, lack
of probable cause and malice. Malice, as
thus used, signifies that the defendant has
acted merely for the purpose of distressing
or damaging the plaintiff. On grounds of
public policy the defendants act is unjus-
tifiable in law since It tends to produce
forced idleness and all the evils resulting
therefrom., Any Intentional interference
without legal justification with a status
or relationship recognized by law for the
sole and specific purpose of damaging
| another who rightly enjoys such status
or relationship is actionabe if damage re-
suits. The defendant has been guilty of
such interference"