The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-04-18

force But there is, perhaps, sufficient to
show that hands were laid upon them in the
matter of inducement and persuasion to cause
them to go away.
Entering Upon Premises.
Now, while it may be admitted that these
persons or any others, whether engaged in
the same kind Of business or not, may
properly, or at least without violation of the
law persuade and induce persons not to deal
with the complainant, or with any particular
person, that is different matter from their
right to enter. upon his premises. or what
amounts to the same thing, to besiege the
premises, so as to interfere with the conduct
Of the business in the premises, and to inter-
fere with persons who have made UP their
minds or are making up their minds to be-
come customers, for the purpose of turning
them away. 1t seems to that is unlaW-
| full; 1t must be so. 1t 1nterferes with a
mans business upon his own premises. 1t
| constitutes acts which are in themselves cal
| culated to produce a breach of the peace.
| 1t is in the nature Of nuisance. A man
of a combative disposition, observing such
! an interference with his business, would very
| likely commit a breach of the peace by re,
moving any person so engaged from the side
walk to the gutter.
| 4 And do not think the law can uphold in
reference with a mans business upon his
|
right to so besiege and beset the Chinese
restaurants then persons engaged in any
| other kind of business-dry goods, for in
stance-would have the right to besiege and
beset any store in the city and turn away
customers as they were about to enter the
place. if they could possibly do so withou
the exercise of active force, with the same
Justification that there is in this case.
don't think that any reasonable person car
claim that there can be any justification FOL
acts of that kind. 1t might as well be as
serted against persons interested in any kline
of business or trade, that they are OF any
1 peculiar nationality and therefore ought tt
be subjects of hatred and ill-wlil by others
It seems to be clear that such conduct canno
be justified, And as the case appears now
it requires the court to issue a preliminar!
writ of Injunction to prevent the besieging o
the doors of the restaurant and the going IL
the neighborhood of the restaurant and thu
distributing Of these cards or in any way in
terfering with persons desiring or intendln,
to enter into the restaurant and also iron
interfering upon the premises or at the prem
Uses with the walters or employees. The.
would have right at any other place to tall
to such persons and give them advice or .em
ploy them If they saw fit, but do not thinl
they have right to go upon the premises Q
in its 1leghborhood to interfere with the bust
ness.
, AS far as the interference by tnreatene'
boycott of pu1veyors is concerned, 1t doe
not seem to me that the evidence shows tina
that has been done or threatened. Their
seems to be no direc. evidence and no affida
Wit of any person who has heard any sue
: threat made or any such attempt made, an
. while it is on the same line, perhaps, and o
. the same Character as the acts that have bee
DONE hardly think the evidence is sufticiei
to warrant the injunction going against thos
| ,.f{o hero iS SiO
suppose there can be an application t
. broaden the injunction or to issue an add
. tional injunction, but hardly think the cas-
is made which will warrant that now.