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

do not specify what provision of the state constitution is infrlnged upon. The valid itv of the statute In question was approv- ed in TarpIey vs State. 79 Ala: 27l
 It is next contended by the respondents that the statute has reference to agrleult- nral Iaborers and menial servants IheIe is nothing in the statute which lends any color to this argument. me pe1sohs within it's protection are "any apprentice or servant" and the language by Whlcr
 they are described Is not ambiguous anu is comprehensive enough to cover all the
 varied relationships of master anu ser
 want. In Southern Ky. Co. Ys Machihls.s
 Local Union Ill Fed. 49 statute or the state of Tennessee, very similar to sec tion 5504 was under consideration, and- the contention was made In that case that , 1t was applicable only to farm laoorefs' Judge Hammond discusses the ques1ioh at length and holds, That unuer such statute as we'll as by common law It was unlawful for a labor union Whosc members were on strike to enueaFoi through committee appointed TOT ,.e purpose to pursuade apprentices uhuer contract 10 work for their employer, Tor a term of years to violate such contract and leave their employment, and mat such attempts should be enjoned as an unlawful conspiracy, where, II successiul' the injury to the employer would be IT, remedable." It was further held Nhere the language of statute is nnamplsuous,
 and bv its plain terms it applies to all persons the courts are not authorized to l limit 1t by construction to particular elass of persons upon some outside con | sideration as of the supposed policy or 1 reason which led to it's enactment
 It is next contended by the respondents l that as the bill of complaint does not ] show that the person now In the employ | of complainant are engaged for definite
 time. the presumption is that the hiring i Is at will and the relationship of master l and servant may be terminated at any l time by either party, and that. therefore, 1 no contractual right of the complainant l is violated if respondents induce the em- 1 ployees to quit complainants service. In 1 other words, that the relationship Of mas l ter and servant, within the meaning of I section 5504, does not exist The propos- tion Is thus stated, by counsel for re- l spondent, in their brief: "It is not averred I in the bill that the laborers of complain ant who have been interferred with are | under any contract, so that the conduct 1 charged against defendants would not result in the breach of any contract. It 1 is evident from the whole bill that the supposed equity of 1t is predicted upon 1 the idea that the defendants, by their l conduct. are causing those occupying | contractual relation with complainant to l violate their contracts. The allegations l of the bill. however, fall short of setting up even this supposed equity, in that 1t 1 does not charge that the contractual re- l lation exists Certainly there Is no | reason why this court should assume jur- i isdiction on the sole idea that the de-
 fendants are endeavoring to induce or persuade persons to quit the employment l of complainant, when they are under no contract to remain, and where they can | quit at their pleasure"
 1 This contention presents question of l great intricasy and difficulty and about which the English and American courts
 differ considerably. Counsel for resplen-
 dents rely mainly, to support their argu- | ment, upon the dissenting opinion of Lord 1 Chief Justice Coeridge, In Bowen vs. | Hall Q. B. Div, and they admit that | the weight of American authorities Is op-
 posed to them. The later case of Allen
 vs. Flood, App. Gas. l, decided in 1898,
 adds more force to respondents conten- tion that Is given by Lord Coeridge's s
 dissenting opinion. I have not access to
 the full reports of the case, but there is | sufficiently full report in II Harvard | Law Review 405 and 449 ct seq. There ] Is also an account of the case in a note l to Plant vs. Woods (Mass) as reported i in Am. and Eng Dec. in Equity 567 l l walking delegate of labor union by
 threat of strike, induced an employer 1 to discharge the plaintiff from his service | The discharged men brought an action against Allen, and the cause of action | assigned was that the defendant malici- 1 ously induced the company not to employ
 the plaintiffs Quoting from the descrip- ton or the case: "The case was first tried
 in the Queens Bench Division. before l
 having answered the question whether
 Allen maliciously induced the company to
 discharge or not to engage the plain
 tiffs In the affirmative, judgment for dam- ages was given against the defendant.
 who thereupQn appealed. In the Court
 or Appeals, where the case was argued
 in 1895 ths Judgment was affirmed bv
 three Judges, Lord Esher. the late master
 Of the rolls, writing the principal opinion.
 me case came before the House of Lords
 December, 1885, and there being a diver
 slty Of opinion, rehearing was had in
 March, 1897, and the exceptional course
 was resorted to of asking eight judges of
 the nigh court to hear the argument and
 tenuer tneir advice Of these eight judges
 SIX gave their opinion in favor of affirm
 ance' two In favor of allowing the an peal. But now the lords reverse the orig
 lnal decision by a vote of six to
 three the lord chancellor siding with th, minority, while Lord Hersehell, former
 iord chancellor, pronounces in favor of l Allen. Of the twenty-one judges who l heard the case in all its stages thirteen or whom three were law lords-held
 there was good cause of action and
 only eight-but six law lords among them 1 denied the existence of an actionable
 wrong. 1t Is further stated that in 1.-two.
 at least of the prevailing opinions de-
 livered in the house of lords. the view ia
 intimated that the case might have been
 decided otherwise on a charge of con
 spiracy.' In the note to Plant vs Woods.
 supra, it is said: This decision how
 ever, is of no value outsire of Great
 Britain and it's dependencies" And again.
 Finally reference to the opinions of
 the lords themselves will show that they l Felt the unconvincing nature of their own
 reasoning, and that their decision rested
 on grounds of expediency rather than of
 law But the fancied dangers they relied
 upon to support their judgment will prove.
 on examination, to be far less imminent
 than those which have been the direct re- | suit or that judgment. The law of Amer,-
 ca may, therefore, safely be said to be 1 SUI that laid down in the cases above l cited: Davis vs. United Portable Hoistino Engineers, 2S App. Div (N Y) 396 Of
 course. Allen vs. Flood Is followed in
 England. Hutley vs Simmons nsos) o
 IS. lSl But according to a recent decision
 of the house of lords, on an appea1 from
 Ireland tnot yet reported) acts similar to
 those which were held fin Allen vs Flood
 to give an employe no right of action
 were held to entitle an employer to dam.
 ages. on the ground that as to him tbav
 were Willful and rnalicione re tba -.