The Sentinel=record., 1914-04-05

of the criminal law
 That the interest of an employer or Iemploye in a contract for service, Is property. is conceded. If the defend ant is permitted to interfere by hir- ing plaintiffs servants from their duty, hy jumping their contracts with plaintiff would not, under the evidence in this case, this be such an interference as would be destruc- tive of plaintiffs business, for time at least, and if continued, would cer- taiuly stop his business, if the party should be successful in having its servants breaking their contracts from time 10 time, with it, The law is. beyond question. that the plain
 tiff has the legal right to carry on its business and to carry out it's con- tracts. and these rights are valuable property rights and no less intrinsic ally property than if it were mer- chandise The right to carry on a lawful business is property right and will be protected
  ment. that interference with labor contracts ny inducing laborers to break their contracts Of employment will be restrained by injunction In fact, it was to protect such contracts as this that the aid of equity was first invoked
 The rule seems to be that no pen son has the right to induce a third party to violate his contract, and that the contractor has the right to enjoin him from so doing, but no right to he protected against compe. titiou, only the right to be free from and walton interference, disturbance or annoyance. A justi- fication for interference must be an equal or superior right in themselves, and no one can legally excuse him self to man. of whose contract he has procured or attempted to procure the breach on tho ground that he has acted on a wrong understanding of his own rights, or without malice, pr in tle best interest of himself or the good of another who was care less in his own advantage.
 The defendants counsel have ar gued with great force and ability. that this contract of plaintiff with it's lA borers is manifestiy unfair and want ing ia mutuality, and therefore can not be enforced by injunction; espe- cially clause thereof. which pro. vides that the employer may. upon ten days written notice discharge the omploye and its obligation under the contract shall cease and deter mine, but 1t fails to permit the em- ploye to determine the contract for any reason. Mr. Elliott on contracts. states the law to he. if contract gives the right to the employer 10 discharge upon certain conditions. it ought to give his omp'oye the same right and if it does not inc contract IS unfair and will not be enforced. l think this is sound law. and would enforce the same if it was @ question arising between the employer and employe, but am unable to see where disiuterested third party has any rights therein for this would he a matter entirely with the contracting parties. and unless raised by the em. ploye in a proper ease I do not sec who else could raise it. Could an intereloper interfere where my cred itor has obtained a judgment against me and is about 10 sell my property under execution because the debt on which the judgment was rendered was at the time harred by the statnte of Limitations? ] think not for the statute of limitation is persona 10 me. No one has the right to object to. this contract because it is not mu- tual except the party affected there by A party to be justified in inter- fering with the oontractual relation ship of other parties must show that he possesses some legal rights in the matter contracted What legal rights has the defendant in these contracts? Can this contract between the plain. tiff and his employees. # void. pro. toct tho defendant in his nterferenee2 He is not their guardian. and un. laae