The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-03-16

MAR DEL 16, 1906.
s ssss t fs ia sft gym e t fhs s
sy t1 81 saa MXsho.
sihce i TN = suites t thats fa ieeanie.
Is@s sy a sss fs ey rsaae &c wa.
one hundred and forty pdoilars from tho
n s a not returned ns ad
was discussed, tho result Of .which was
fat s Nh t. seXG ts Gty a ~
that he and one o tho appellants on
tered into ~, agreement that llo was to
get ;,t q. as . much money out OF appcllecs,
ma positive PROOF 81 D tlia illegal ii 81 eais
Z used ny ne union to curry on their bust
ness. and TINT for TINT reason he .co,,-
nlond. This plan 81 Wide to obtain
money ,.a =. Y, from the union Is shown to hnvc
a ail,1! under these circumstances. and con-
sldering the conflicting and contradictory
i deafu rs q the andavits he has ngde.
makes. wc take the view, MS did the
are q !. entitled 70 little or no consjderation
Many More Affidavits.
v,nn, would =, ,npossble for rs re-
case. numbering seventy or more: siinlce
Y 1t to say with reference to the charge OF
picketing, that the, most that has been
patrols or plckets Of dppellees union
seen ncnr the printing establishments OF.
appellants .. some OF appellants had rcn-
I said that the fllcrnhers of tha ,ininn have
by thclr numbers or by any threats or
violence OF gesture or language at or near
tered any cmpoye from " gorRiilg, or any nv
person seeking employment with appel
i UNITS or either OF them. on the 'con-
r9 md i te Pro patrd e s member e
pear to have acted In Il quiet and orderly
wa, way It is true that some Of the mo,n-
t hers or the union are shown to have fol-
( t Ia.i homes or boarding-iouses In their
ci it,,r to induce them to join the union.
,sa ~ WasS Of course to result an their
duct OF these members OF the union does
Z iiot appoar to have been In any way VIC.
i In[e 81 tnrshitenng. and they only
lighthouses Ing, of these employees. which an
+ pear 10 Aavc been usually granted
A Personal Difficulty.
Il is true that u personal difficulty be-
tween I,,n one OF the appcllccs, II, w.
~ ana the william Wilde. OF whom
Ma nls, nave ,t spok t, Is shown TO have taken
facts and circumstances out OF which
Inc difficulty arose are considercdE clear
TX the union or It's members. other tllun
4BiaKcy himself, were In no way respon-
siple for what then occurred. 1t seems
that the $40 was paid by Blukey to
Wilde for the latter's transportation to
Canada, to which place he had stated
nc. wished to go. and not having left the
Il in1N vt,nt IL
money. Blakcy demanded OF him the re-
turn of the money, but Wilde refused
to return the money and demanded $50
more; whercupon Blakey became angry
ana and abused Wilde. but did not strike
him. The abuse of Wilde was not be-
cause he was q non-lmion man, nor be-
cause lie was in the employ OF ono of
the appellants. but because Blakey
thought that WIlde's refusal to return
the money. under the circumstances was
the equivalent OF obtaining money under
false pietenses. and in effect so told him.
For Blakey's use of abusive language to
Wilde Eon that occasion he was after
wards punished In the Police Court bysir
fine. and there the matter seems to have
ended.
The evidence. we think, falls to make
a case showing that appellees have In
any way so molestcd. annoyed or dam
aged the appellants in the conduct of
their business as to entitle them to the
extraordinary relief by Injunction We
are of opinion. however. that while the
Injunction of october 81, 1906 should. as
the record stood. have been dissolved
it was entirely proper to continue the
cause on the docket with tho right to
appellants to move for further injunc-
lions pendente lite, and reservingtato
4 them the right to such relief as they
might show themselves entitled upon n
final hearing.
This lcing the effect of the decree UNI
der review. 1t will be affirmed.
Origin of the Case.
The origin of this case was the de-
n,and made by the Richmond Typo
graphical Union, No. %, a branch of the
International Typographical Union, that
their employers. the Richmond Typo
thetea. an association composed OF the
employing printers should grant them
an "egllt-hour day. at the same wages
for which they had Heretofore worked
nine hours a day; and the Typothctae
having refused to agree that tileYeight-l
hour day should be inaugurated ION jan
uary I, 1906. the members of Richmond
Typographical onion. No. 30. on Septer,-
Der II. 1865. went out on a strike. On
pany and others. composing the assoc
citation Of 1.-the Richmond Typathetae
filed their bill in the Chancery Court
OF the city of Richmond alleging that
their business was being seriously inter
fcred with by the striking printers. and
that they. through the officers and mem
bers of their union, had In every way
sought to annoy, hound. interfere with.
entice away, purchase and bride the cn,-
ployes taking the places of the strikers:
that they had picketed the places of
business of the members OF tile Typo
tSctae. followed the new employees to
their homes and 1parding-houscs offered
brides. free Transportation and strike
benefits to tllenlSto induce Them to leave
their employment. threatened the new
emnoves that unless they$,lid leave tEeir
employment they would incur the Ill
NEEDLESS ALARM.