The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-01-05
grounds uror, which, It did this were In
briAf NJ follows:

brief MS follows:
a conspiracy Is not a subject OF civi!
action, although damages result, Unless
something Is done which, without the
conspiracy, would give right OF action.
The plot alleged in the declaration IS not
unlawful In Virginia IN the absence OF
statutory enncttnnfts. There is nothing
hurtful to the public; no raising or de.
pressing Of prices; nothing In restrain!
Of the general trade. only locai ana ana
limited restraint The defendants had
legitimate interests to protect ana icGit.
mate purposes to serve BY this alleged
combination, and had not formed such
combination wartonly or nnnliciouslS, de-
spite the frequent use Of such terms III
the declaration.
The declaration set out no overt act
done By defendants In pursuance OF the
conspl,a cy, that the court might decide
whether it was legal or illegal. If such
acts are set out at all they are not set
forth with sufficient legal precision 10
give defendants notice or to show. the
i court that what was done by defenaants
was actionahie rs matter OF law ne
declaration further sets out that the de-
PENDANTS forbade or prevented merchants
from selling TO the plaintiff. but does not
alleEe they had any means or power TO
prevent them from SO doing. lhese
charges add nothing to the substantial al
legation Of acts done BY the defendants,
but 1t is simply an allegation OF me con-
SEQUENCES of the acts already set out.
Further. the declaration does not set
out any act OF the defendants for which
thew or any of them can be held GRIM
inaily liable, either By the common law
or by statute, and the acts alleged 10
have been done do not, independently OF
the alleged combination and conspiracy
involve civil injury to the plaintiff ior
which he has a right Of action. ms
declaration. being not good as separate
ground of action against one DEFENDANT,
is not good against any or all OF them.
so far as 1t sets out any agreement
in restraint Of trade, the declaration II
was contended, gives no right or acl ,1,t
for injuries resulting therefrom. The
common law. while II refuses TO enforce
such contracts. gives no right to damages
to any one injured thereby.
1t is not sufficient to allege simply that
damages did result, but facts as to dam
age should be set out. Ihe plainl,,li
could not buy in Richmond, but ne coula
buy in Baltimore, and 1t IS not ailessa
that he had to pay any more or thal hc
suffered any delay. In reference TO bar.
Camin, It is not alleged that the plaintiff
actually needed the goods refused, or
that he suffered a loss in consequence.
The only fact sufficiently set forth IS tne
failure to bid on Mrs. NVheelwrlght,s
plumbing, and this Is too remote. ZIG
tract. but even then it was necessary for
Bargamin to refuse because OF deiend'
ants wrongful conduct before the latter
are liable.
Brilliant Argument.
The argument was long and brilliant.
1t began az II a. NJ. and closed at
O'Clock in the evening With two hours In
Permission for dinner.
Mr.. Smith opened the argument and
closed He made strong speech en-,
pnasizing the points set forth IN detall
above. He cited authority after author
ity. and made frequent reference 70 Il
pile of law books near his hand. re
held that the combination alleged was
lawful. and that even II 1t might be con-
strued as void under the common law
it would not be actionable In the absence
of statutary provision to that effect. he
held that the plumbers in ORGANIZING were
protecting their rights, and thai TINS was
peaceful boycott. necessary AZ Pio'eo'
ton of their interests In
rrho argument by Mr. Rayoll was bril-
liant and able to a high degree, and II
elected for the speaker the congraula-
tions of the learned judge. He Analysed
tho declaration closely and brought out
| clearly the nature Of the compact or con
| spiracy entered into by the master plum
! bers He emphasized every leatule m
| this declaration, and then nc turned MS
| attention to the objections raised III .he
| demurrer. He admitted that q man had
n right TO refuse to deal with another;
| that If they desired the plumbers could
| voluntarily enter into an agreement not
| to sell to any man. But IN th!s case
| the element Of force had been introduced.
| Bargamin Company had been coefceo,
against their will, into refusing 10 sen
! to Mc!ghan or any plumber NOT NEIL
t,er of the union. Intent determines the
annaarance OF any action. What might
| bc good VIXEN fJne with a good intent be-
| comes bar when done maliciousiy or
with a bad intent. In this case malice
! was alleged The defendants had wan
| touly and maliciously consp!red to m
| lure the business of the plaintiff. IN 40
! Ing this they were aTnenaple 70 'ne NV
whether their agreement, or combination,
! or union, was lawful or not Mr. hosail
| hold that the agreement itself was uh-
lawful. He further held that the offense
| alleged would have constituted an Oh
| fensc in the absence of any conspiracy
at all. Each man in the union was liaDie-
| one of the defendants named couic De
| convicted and punished under the dcciaF-
alton. The conspiracy simply agsresales
the wrong and perhaps makes II more
| fragrant.
| A DrrfcCt nNHldIlf'lls VI iu''ioi'''Nh 49,
roured in nv Mr.. Royall He argued from
the elementary principles OF law and show
cd that any combination to RESTRAIN trhue
ar TO coerce set OF men into doing what
| another set arc doing Is unlawful ms
I, he applied to trusts. labor unions anu
| everything else that came under inc n ,i
| He read cases that showed no" Walking
| delegates who had been held lianle Tor
threatening 10 call strike II non-un'on
,oe nwere not discharged. lie charged thht
the present conspiracy was one or the I'M
! lawful ones. 1t restrained trade; II IN
,ured n mans business; It intcrfered win
| the rights Of anothcr and an Invasion Of
| right was sufficient cause for dam
| ages although no actual pccunary loss
crsucd References were made to many
celebrated cases and to some OF very re.
cent date, An Atlanta decision was OF
particular interest. a half hundred or
moro druggists had combined against a
single competitor described as ian asgrea-
s,ve cutter" that is to say druggist VINO
cut prices under the others, The con-
bination asked the manufacturers to re.
f,ea IN coll siipnlies 10 this cut -ra te man.