The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-09-30

Brief Prepared by Judge CAVITY
Case Will Be Decided This
Term.

Judge Willard Cray's decision In the
much discussed injunction granted against
the Building Trades Council and others
upon the application of the Electrical. con-
tractors OF the city, will be passed upon
by the supreme court this term. The
appellants brief has been written by
Judge Thomas CAVITY, recently called into
the case. It shows that the decision
means the legal solution of many vexing
differences between organized labor and
capital. It will settle the law in this
state and Is, therefore, looked forward to
with unusual interest.
The principal point made by appellants
counsel, and the one upon which his argu-
ment seems to center, is that 1.-The men
have Institutional right to quit work,
and that the lower court had no right to
restrain them therefrom. That the court
did restrain them therefrom is denied by
respondents counsel, who maintain, how
ever, that the men have no right to threat
en- to quit to the detriment Of the employ
ers business, and that is what Judge
Cray restrained them from doing.
Assignments Of Error.
The nine assignments Of error made in
appellants brief, are as follows:
Fdrst-In ordering any writ Of temporary
Injunction to issue in this action.
Second-In making the order for tenn
porary writ OF injunction made In this
Third-In ordering an injunction to is
sue in this action enjoining defendants
from In any manner interfering with the
business of the plaintiff by means Of
threats or intimidation of any kind or ma
ture, directed against the customers or
prospective customers of said plaintiff
Fourth-In ordering an Injunction to
issue in this action enjoining defendants
from interfering with customers or pros
pective customers by threats Of any kind
or nature.
Fifth-In ordering a temporary writ Of
injunction to issue, enjoining defendants
from notifying customers, or prospective
customers, OF plaintiffs that plaintiffs are
unfair.
sixth-1n enjoining defendants, or any
OF them, from going upon the premises
where plaintiffs are engaged or employed
for the purpose of interfering with the
business OF plaintiffs.
Seventh-In enjoining defendants or any
Of them from going upon the premises,
where plaintiffs are employed, for the pur-
pose Of interfering with them by order
to the various allied unions to desist from
work upon the said premises by virtue
of the fact that plaintiffs are employed
thereon.
Right to Work In Unions.
Eighth-In enjoining defendants, or any
Of them. from interfering with plaintiffs
by ordering, directing or notifying men
belonging to the various allied unions to
desist from work on said premises by
virtue Of the fact that plaintiffs are em-
ployed thereon.
Ninth-In enjoining defendants, or any
Of them, from going upon the premises
where plaintiffs are employed, for the pur-
pose of interfering with the business Of
plaintiffs and pursuant to said purpose,
from ordering or directing or notifying
men belonging to the various allied unions
to desist from work upon said premises
by means of the fact that plaintiffs are
employed thereon.
Many authorities from English and
American jurisprudence are cited to sus-
tain the appellants position.