The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-05-29
RIGHTS OF UNIONS
DEFINED BY COURT

is true. We think that care and caution
should DO exercised In the issuance OF
injunctions OF this character.
In no instance should union be
restrained from using lawful and
peaceablc methods for the purpose OF
maintaining It's organization. but while
this is true. the court should restrain
those who by violence, coercion and
intimidation seek TO deprive the mine
owner OF tho right to use his property
as he may sec fit.
we are inclined to the belief that
In some instances n reasonable delay
in the issuance OF u writ would have
a tendency to bring about a settlement
between the parties by which the
rights of both could be amply protect
cd, and thus avoid the expense incl
dent TO litigation. to say nothing about
the injury sustained by the employer
as we'll as the employee. occasioned
by the suspension Of operations.
I'VE have carefully considered the
cases relied upon by tho plaintiff, but
are of opinion that they do not apply
TO case at bar. For the reasons stated.
tho decree OF the court below Is re-
versed. and tho cause remanded with
instructions TO dismiss the bin at
plaintiffs cost"
CASE WHERE VIOLENCE
AND INTIMIDATION WAS USED
An opinion was also handed down
by Judge Pritchard. and concurred In
by Circuit Judge Woods and District
Judge Waddill in the case OF Van Bitt-
ner. ct ais, appellants. VS.. tho West
Virginia Coal Company. appellee. on
appeal from the District Court at
Wheeling, w. Va.
The controversy involved almost tho
same question as that OF the Mine
Workers, but from tho evidence 1t was
shown that violence, intimidation and
coercion were resorted to By the de-
PENDANTS.
The lower court granted prelimi-
nary injunction restraining the de
fendants from committing acts OF vio-
lence, intimidation and coercion, and
also from the use of persuasion and
other peaccablc methods, and from
aiding striking miners by furnishing
them money from what was known
as n relief fund. The defendants made
a motion to modify the decree In so far
as 1t restrained the miners by FUR
nishing them money. The motion was
disallowcd, and the case was appealed
The ruling OF the appellate court fol-
lows:
1--WE think the decree OF tho lower
court In so far AS II restraints the
defendants from any acts of violence,
intimidation and correction is proper In
view OF the evidence. While, this is
true, nevertheless we are OF opinion
for the reasons stated In the ease OF
John Mitchell. T. l.. Lewis ct al VS..
Hitchman Coal and Coke Company,
supra, that the court below erred in
entering that portion of the decree
whereby 1t is provided that these de-
PENDANTS shall be restrained from re-
sorting to pcaceablo and lawful
methods for the purpose OF organic
Ing the miners of that section"
The opinion then sets forth tho man
ncr In which the decree of tho lower
court should be modified.
NORFOLK CASE ARGUED
BEFORE CIRCUIT COURT
The following case was argued yes
tcrday:
No. 1871. Walter II. Taylor and
George w. Roper, Trustees, ct nj, ap-
pellants and cross-nppeilces. VS.. Mary
Bum. appellee and cross appellant;
cross-appeals from tho District Court
at Norfolk. In bankruptcy Argued
by w. H. Il. Loyal. Norfolk, for the
appellants and cross-appellees, and by
Norvell l.. Henley, williamsburg, Va,
for the appellee and cross-appellant.
and submitted.
Case In call to-day:
No. 1867. Margaret II. Williamson,
plaintiff In error. VS.. Katherine Osen
ton, defendant In error; error to the
District Court mt Charleston. w. Va
To be argued by Chiffon. MacCorkle
&. Chiffon. Charleston; s. w. Walker,
Martinsburg. w. Va, and Arthur Eng
!ish. Charleston, for tho plaintiff in
error. and by II. G.. Linn, G.. Beverley
Broun and C. Hull. Charleston, for
tho defendant IN error.