The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-04-13

physical violence, has been used by the pickets as part of a concerted plan and conspiracy to compel plaintiff to yield to the demands of the strikers under penalty of serious loss in the conduct of his business.
 Additional facts relating to the in ception and cause of the strike, the effect on Plaintiff's business and spe- ci1c acts of conduct, would only en- phasixe the situation described. The plain statement of the facts shows that upon the average man the effect of having to run the gauntlet of these camps two or four times a. day, is in timidating and threatening in the highest degree.
 This is not picketing merely for information It is rather the sta- tionlng of a permanent guard in force
 with the design of fntfmidating and driving away men and the presence of a police officer was deemed neces- Sary to avoid actual breach of the peace. This procedure, is clear Violation of our statutes, Chapter POP, Acts of 1909, and under the rulings of the most authoritative courts this conduct is unlawful and subject to the preventive power of the equitable in Junction. The temporary injunction filed herewith may issue being y1rI,- stanttalfy as asked in the original prayer for relief.
 Temporary Injunction.
 This action returnabIe the first Tuesday in March, 1916(+ came before this court under a.4ruIe to show cause why a temporary in nJunction should not tissue, restraining and forbiddine the defendant association. it's officers, agents and members and the individ- ual defendants. from continuing to unlawfully conspire, combine Or in teFfere in any way with the peaceabIe and orderly conduct of the pIaintiff's business, or with the procurement or retention of employees by the plaintiff and from threatening, intinid ting coercing, insulting or otherwise an moving or attempting by threats in- Limitations, coercion, insult, annoy ance or other means to prevent per- sons desirous-of entering or remaining in the employ of the plaintiff from so doing, or to induce persons in. the employ of the plaintiff te> withdraw therefrem, and from maintaining a system of surveillance over or picket. ing of the factory of the plaintiff, and from 1oitering upon or near the street or paths or ways, whether pub lie or private, over which the plain tiffs employees customari1y pass when coming in or, going from plaintiffs factory, and from addressing plain tiff's employees with approbrious names, epithets, and otherwise in- sultlng or annoying them, and from intercepting persons approaching plaintiffs factory for the purpose of coercing or spersuading them to re- frain from entering plaintiffs employ, or from interfering with the plaintiffs employees or persons contemplating the plaintiffs employ, as the same are going to or from the plaintiffs fac tory or at any other rTme and from continuing to do any of the unlawful acts set forth in the foregoing com plaint. and from interfering in any unlawful manner with the procure ment of employees by the plaintiff cor poration, and from doing any other act intended or calculated to intirrf- date or compel the plaintiff to do or charge the said Palmfsch against its will or intended or calculated to fntfrn- idate or compel thep 1aintiff to do or to refrain from doing any other act which the plaintiff has a legal right to do or to refrain from doing, until the superior court to be held at Bridgeport in and for the County of Fairfield on the first Tuesday of March, 1916, and until said court shall make further order in the prem ises. Said motion was fully heard on February 23s 247 and s29, and March I, by witnesses and counsel, and now upon due consideration it appears and is found that a temporary injunction