The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-02

from employment in which he Is engaged under a legal contract for certain period, provided damage result to the em- ploye from such discharge" And further. in the second head note: An action will also lie where the period for which the employment Is to continue Is not certain. if damage result from the discharge, even tSough from inability to ascertain the amount of damage, a verdict for nominal damages only should result"
 | In Moran vs. Dunphy (Mass.), 59 N F. | 125, in an opinion by Chief Justice Holmes | 1t Is held "We apprehend that there Is no longer any difficulty in recognizing that a right to be protected from ma | cious interference may be incident to q right arising out of contract although contract. so far performance is con- | cerned, imposes a duty only on the | promisor Again, in the case of contract of employment even when the employ ment is at will, the fact that the em- | ployer is free from liability for dis charging the plaintiff does not carry with 1t immunity to the defendant who has controlled the employers action to the plaintiffs harm. See also Rice ys. Man | ley, 66 N. Y. s2; Consolidated Steel Wire Co., vs. Murray, 80 Fed Rep. s11; case of Master Workmen, 152 N. Y. S3. 46 N. E. 297; In re Garrett & Co, 7s Fed. Rep. | 2G0: Curran vs. Green. 152 N. Y. B, notes 10 and II to Plant vs. Woods, Am. k Eng. Dec in Eq. 595. 596-9T, Thomas ys. Railway Co.,, 62 Fed. S03
 In the case at bar there are two further matters which counsel for respondents omit to notice. If 1t ba conceded that the bill of complaint shows that complainants present employees are not hired for definite time. and that the contract of service may be terminated at will, by either party, yet there is an implied agreement or an expectation. tt..a
 want shall continue indefinitely, and as long as it Is mutually agreeable to the parties. A manufacturing business could not be successfully conducted If new con- tracts were required to be made each day with the employees. There could in such event be no assurance of the continuity of business operations. The manufactur- CT would be compelled to submit to de- | lays each day; would be uncertain wheth- | CT on any day he would have enough employees to operate his machinery, and would be under the annoying necessity of daily going into the labor market to | bargain for the service of a sufficient number of men to operate his machinery | On the other hand the worKmen would be | congronted with equally perplexing and | harassing conditions. They would each | day be compelled to look for an em- l ployer: would be subjected to loss of time and would be distressed by the insecurity of their position. They could not make any proper provision for even the near future by entering into contracts for food | and shelter and the other things neces- sary for any degree of comfortable Iiv- ing. To my mind these considerations strengthen the conclusion that the rela- tionshlp, even if the hiring Is at will is | within the protection of the common law principles. which have been discussed as well as within the statutes. section 454 and 4511, above set out.
 Tharn Ia m aIn hi
 was absent in Allen vs. Flood It is alleged in the bill of complaint and for the purpose of this trial it is admitted that the respondents combined for the purpose of effecting their designs. As they are attempting to engage in an unlaw- ful enterprise they are guilty of A con- spiracy. at the common law and under the statutes which have been discussed and set out In State vs. Stewart, 50 VI. , 2'S 59 Am. Rep 720. 9 At Rep 55e 1t Is said; A combination of two or more per- sons to effect an illegal purpose either by legal Illegal means whether srcb purpose be illegal at common law or bv statute, IS common law conspiracy Such combinations are equally illegal Whether they promote objects or adopt means that are per SC lndctable, or pro mote objects or adopt means that are per SC oppressive. immoral or wronRfuliv preJudicial 10 the rights of others If they seek to restrain trade or tend to the | destruction of the material propertv of the country they work injury to tho whole people," In Old Dominion Steam
 ship Company vs. McKenna 30 Fed 48 | the court says: The defendants not be- Ing Tn plaintiffs employ. and without any legal Justification. so far as appears-a mere olspute about wages the merits of which are not stated, not being any legal 1ustifcation-procured plaintiffs work
 men in this city (New York and in southern parts to quit work In A body for the purpose of inficting Injury and damage upon the plaintiff until 1t should accede to the defendants demands. and pay southern negroes the same wages as New York longshore men, which the plain tin was under no obligation to grant; and such procurement of workmen to auit being designed to inflict injury on the plaintiff. and not be justified constituted in law malicious and illegal interfer- ence With the plaintiffs business, which Is actionable." Again: Associations have no more right to infiict injury upon otn- CTS than individuals have. All combina- tons and associations designed to coerce workmen to become members thereof ar to interfere with, obstruct. vex, or annoy them in working. or in obtaining work
 because they are not members: or de- signed to prevent employers from making a just discrimination in the rate of wages paid to the skillful and unskillful to tho dingent and to the lazy; to the efficient ana 10 the inefficient; and all associa lions designed to interfere with the nerfeot freedom of employers in the proper man agement and control of their lawful buei ness, or to dictate in any particular the terms upon which their business shall be conducted, by means of threats of in Jury or loss, by interference with their property or traffic, or with their lawful employment of other persons or de- signed to abridge any of these rights-pro tanto illegal combinations or associa- tons; and all acts done in furtheranee or such intentions by such means and accompanied by damage are action able. In the leading case of Arthur vs. oakes. 63 Fed. S12. from the Circuit Court Of Appeals of the Seventh circuit. this question Is considered in a careful opinion by Justice Harlan The decision WAS l based in part upon a statute of the state Of Wisconsin, quite similar to section 551I or the criminal code of Alabama The pertinent point of the statute reads as | follows; Amy two or more persons who shall combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake, or concert together for ina , purpose of willfully or maliciously inI,r- | Ing another in his reputation, trade btSi- ness or profession by any means what , ever, or for the purpose of maiicicuslv 1 compelling another from doing or per- forming any lawful act, shall De punish
 able by imprisonment in the county iail | han