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

ly irresponsible, and could not respond to the damages. In the Port of Mobile Vs. Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co., % Ala. 115, 4 So. Rep. 106 1t is said; Tt Is too clear for argument that 1t Is no ob- lection to the exercise of this jurisdic ton that the attempted invasion of the franchise sought to be protected is ac- companied by acts which ifare personal trespasses. A court of equity will not, 1t Is true, interfere to enjoin a mere trespass of an ordinary character. either upon the person or proper ty. The remedies afforded at law arc deemed adequate in cases of this kind. Railroad Co. vs. Walton. IA Ala. 206. But the cases are numerous in which the aid of this court has been successfully invoked to enjoin trespasses which, if unrestrained would probably result in irreparable injury or where such mischief might be completely effect ed before a trial at law could be had, as to the constitutional right The equity of the present bin can be sup ported upon the ground that the court will lend its aid to prevent the destruc- tion or serious impairment of a vested franchise. the value of which cannot be adequately estimated in damages. The case is strengthened by the further con- sideration of preventing expensive and exatious litigation accompanied by a null tipltcity of suits, and the insolvency of the defendants, by whome the alleged grievances are threatened-faces which strongly corroborate the alleged made quacy of any legal remedy open to the complainant in the courts of law" Ham ilton-B Brown Shoe Co. vs. Saxley. 52 Am
 St. Rep. 622; Beck vs. Union, 4S l.. R. A. 407; In re Debs, 15S U. S 564 Plant vs. Woods S5 Am St. Rep -; Cumberland Glass Mfg. Go. vs Glass Assn. 46 At. Rep POS, 59 N. J. Ed i9, and the other cases hereinbefore cited.
 Does the granting of relief 10 com platnant by way of injunction. violate any Of the constitutional guarantees to the respondents of a trial by jury? This ln- quiry has been answered in part when 1t was shown that the complainant has DO adequate protection by an action at law. In this suit the complainant valves any proceedings to punish crime, which may have been committed; and it bases it's right of action upon the tortious invasion of It's rights by the respondents. It is not sought to vindicate the offended ma jesty of the state, or to punish the wrong inflicted upon the whole body of people, The complainant seeks redress for a private injury to itself. It asks not that a penalty be visited upon the respondents or that they be mulched in damages: but that their hands be stayed, from further injury to It's busi- ness. Of course to make the prohibitions effective, there must reside in the court the power to coerce obedience to it's com mands. It is a fundamental principle in equity Jurisprudence that courts of equi- ty exist only for the protection and en- forcement of property rights. Nothing further is being attempted in this case than to protect guaranteed rights of property from such invasion as that no other remedy would be effectual to pro- tect. Courts of equity with their his torical attributes and immemorial exis- tence, are recognized preserved, and. in part, amplined in the several constitu- tions. which have been adopted in Ala bama. Such principles as had become parts of the very fabric of these courts, and the exercise of powers such as are now questioned have long been sane toned by the constitutions of this state, and they In no wise conflict with the con- stitutional guarantees of trial by Jury. This question was considered In Hamil- ton-Brown Shoe Co. vs. Saxley. 52 Am. St.. Rep. 625. The court says: But they (the defendants) take the position that even If they doing the unlawful acts that they are charged with doing. still this court has no right to interfere with them, because they say that what they are doing is a crime by the state law of this state. and that for the com mission of a crime they can only be tried by a jury in a court having crimi- nal jurisdiction. It will be observed that the deIendants do not claim to have the right to do what the injunction forbids them doing Their learned counsel even quotes the statue to show that 1t Is a crime to do so. But he contends that the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Missouri guarantee them the right to commit crime. with only this limitation, to-wit. hoI for the crime when committed, in a Criminal court, be- fore a jury, and that 10 restrain them from committing crime Is to rob them of their constitutional right of trial by jury If that position be correct, then there can be no valid statute to prevent crime But that position Is contrary to all reason. The right Of trial by jury does not arise until the party is accuced of having already committed the crime. If you see man advancing upon you with murderous de- meanor and a deadly weapon, and you arrest him-disarm him-you have per- haps prevented an act which would have brought about a trial by jury, but you cannot be said to have deprived him of his constitutional right of trial by jury The train of thought put in motion by the argument of the learned counsel for defendants on this point, leads only to this end, to-wit, that the constitution guarantees to every man the right to commit crime so that he may enjoy the inestimable right of trial by jury This same subject Is elaborately discussed in re Debs, 15S U S. 564; and 1t is there held that an injunction to restrain strikers from the commission of acts similar to those described in the present case was not a violation of defendants right to a trial by jury.
 The resnondents interDose an elabora C. motion to modify the injunction. To grant this motion. as made.i would in effect work a practical dissolution of the injunction, as nearly every prohibition contained in the writ would .be stricken out The discussion of the motion to dis solve the injunction has covered nearly every phase of the motion to modify. Consequently, In my opinion, the only ground of the motion to modify that Is open for discussion is the fourth, which seeks to strike out the provisions that prohibits the respondents from enticing and persuading the employees of com plainant to leave It's service or employ ment. This portion of the writ seems to be founded upon sections 55O4 and 55l1 of the criminal code. The fret named sec tion is as follows: Any person, who en- tices, decoys or persuades any apprentice or servant to leave the service or em- ployment of his mater, must, on convic- ton. be fined not less than twenty, nor more than one hundred dollars; and they may also De imprisoned in the county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than three months.s Section 5511 reads: Any person, who. by force or threats of violence to per sons or property, prevents or seeks to prevent another from doing work or tu tor frnp racf fIt,ry