The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-18

InJdry' in its legal sense means dam
age resulting from an unlawful act.
Associations may be entered into, the
object of which is to adopt measures
that may tend to diminish the gains
and profits of another, and yet so far
from being unlawful, they may be
highly meritorious
The complainantS proceed on the
theory that they are entitled to pro-
lection in the legitimate exercise of
their business; that the sending of
the notices to wholesale dealers not
to sell supplies to plumbers not mem
bers of the association, under the pen
atty, expressed in some instances and
implied in others, of the withdrawal
of the patronage of the members of
the associations in case of a failure
TO comply, was unlawful, because it
was intended injuriously to affect the
plumbers not members of the associa-
ton in the conduct of their business
and must necessarily have that effect.
It is doubtless true, speaking gener-
ally. that no one has right intention
ally to do an act with the intent to
iniure another in his business. Injury
however. in it's legal sense, means
damage resulting from violation of
a legal right. 1t is this violation of a
legal right which renders the act
wrongful in the eye of the law and
makes it actionable. If therefore there
is a legal excuse for the act it is
not wrongful, even though DANCE may
result from it's performance. me
cause and excuse for the sending of
the notices, it is evident, was a selfish
desire on the part of the members OF
the association to rid themselves OF
the competition of those not mem
bers, with view of increasing the
profits of their own business. The
question then resolves itself into this:
Was the desire to free themselves from
competition a sufficient excuse in legal
contemplation for the sending of the
notice?
1--WE think the question must re-
celve an affirmative answer. Com
petition, it has been said, is the life
Of trade. Every act done by a trader
for the purpose of diverting trade
from g rival and attracting 1t to HIM
self is an act Intentionally done and,
in so far as it is successful. to the in
Jury of the rival in his business, since
to that extent II lessons his gains and
profits. To hold such an act wrongful
and illegal would be to stifle cOmpe-
tition' Macauley Bros. VS.. Tierney, 10
r. 1. Rep. 225.
"The court refused to enjoin the
defendants. 1t is urged by counse,
that the, guilt of defendants does moi
involve what they did, but what they
conspired to do. If the defendants had
pleaded to the first count In
the bill without calling for
bill of particulars, they
would have gone to the jury on
the general issue of traverse to the
bill. When, however. the State files its
bill of particulars. which for the
purpose of the trial, is as If the
means had been set out in the original
bill OF indictment. the question is pre-
sented whether either in respect to
the purpose of the conspiracy or the
means by which it was to be accom-
plished any crime is charged. If no
crime is charged there is nothing fol
the jury to pass upon. The court will
either upon motion quash the indict-
ment or as 1t did in Com VS.. Hunt,
SUPRA arrest the Judgment We are
of the opinion that a conspiracy to in
jure ones business is not per Sc in
dictable. DO the means set out make
1t so? This brings us TO consider the
acts done by the defendants. Three
If them on January 8, 1904, went to
gether to he prosecutors place OF
business and notified him that he
could not be considered in sympathy
with organized labor unless he kept
constantly employed union men. Ger
tainly the number of the defendants
was not so large as to intimidate him,
and there is no suggestion that their
manner was either offensive, violent
or even discourteous. AS VIC have
seen, organized labor or labor organ
i2ations are not unlawful. The pros
ecutor had no legal right to demand
that he should be considered in SYM
pathv with organized labor, therefore
he was not to be deprived of any legal
right if he preferred to employ nom
union men, and the defendant had an
equal right to consider him unSympa-
thetic with organized labor if he ex-
ercised such right. Suppose the same
number of persons, being members OF
the Anti-Saloon League should go to
a merchants store and notify him that
he would not be considered n SYM
pathy with the temperance cause If
he employed clerks who did not be-
long to the league. If he continued
to employ such clerks he was simply
considered as unsympathetic with the
cause. We fail to see any difference in
principle between the act of the de-
PENDANTS and the case supposed.
They notified him that he would not
tie considered in sympathy with or
ganized labor if he kept i'll his en-
piOyment non-union men--althouSh
ne was then under contract with non
union men for a year in adVonce. 1t
IS intended we assume, IN this item
spired to compel the prosecutor to
break his contract with nop-union
men and discharge them. 1t will be
noted that it is nowhere charged that
such was the purpose of the defend
ants. Not a word is said capable of
that construction. Certainly nothing
should be left to conjecture. To what
extent a conspiracy TO induce men to
violate their contracts is criminal is
mot clear. We are not required to dis
cuss or decide it here. There is no
complaint that the conduct of the de-
PENDANTS was intended to injure non
union men. This case has no such
element iii it and we do not wish TO be
understood rs expressing any opinion
in regard to it. The question has been
before other courts. There is pain
ful absence of harmony in the decis-
inns. Suppose. however, that it be
conceded that the defendants dia not
Ify the prosecutor that unless he dis
charged non-u1ioE men with whom he
had contracted, etc. what was 70 be
the result to him if he refused? He
was to be considered as unsympa thetic
with union men labor. This falls far
short of intimidation or coercion. 1t
will be noted that there is no charge
that these defendants were members
of any secret or other organization,
or that they had the power or threat
-. !. l..