« AnteriorContinuar »
ened by all the curative virtues of a verdict, Missouri does not put a correct estimate on and when they are aided by the presumptions dancing, when it holds that it is libellous to which are rightfully to be inferred by this court accuse an institution of learning, in print, of in favor of the correctness of the rulings and teaching the art of dancing. This is what that decisions of the trial court. It has been held | learned court has done in the case of St. James in a number of cases that, when the sufficiency Military Academy v. Gaiser, 28 S. W. Rep. 851. of a complaint is challenged for the first time It seems that a number of clergymen of Macon, by an assignment of error in the appellate Missouri, assembled themselves together and court, many omitted facts will be deemed to resolved that the academy in question, because have been supplied by the evidence, and the it ‘fostered the practice of dancing, which is complaint held to be sufficient.
antagonistic to the teaching of our churches Expressly stating that it is unwilling to say and homes,' and hurtful to the moral and that the doctrine of intendment after verdict spiritual well-being of all engaging in it,' and should be carried to the extent of holding that because the academy obstinately refused to disany material fact omitted from a complaint will continue it, although thereunto requested by be assumed to have been supplied by the evi- said clergymen, was harmful to the moral and dence, the court distinctly affirms that a com- religious interests of our community,' and that plaint which is insufficient to withstand a de- they recommended 'the members of murrer, because of a defective or imperfect churches and all friends of religion and good averment, only, of a fact, will be cured by a
morals that they absent themselves from and verdict upon the assumption that every fact discourage and discountenance in every way alleged in a complaint, and such other facts, all receptions and other gatherings at the acadnot alleged, but which are naturally to be in
emy as long as dancing is allowed in the buildferred from those alleged, being the basis for ing. The court holds that this publication the introduction of evidence, have been proven. constituted a cause of action for libel, but The particular thing which is presumed to have leave it to a jury to say whether it was justified been proved must always be such as
on the ground ihat dancing was immoral. It implied from the allegations on the record by a
seems to us that the charge is not libellous, fair and reasonable intendment. But where a
because it does not accuse the academy of promaterial fact is lacking the pleading is not cured
moting anything immoral. Would it be libelby the verdict.
“A complaint is vulnerable to attack, because lous, for example, for the proprietors of the fatally defective, when a fact necessary to the academy to publish that the churches presided statement of a cause of action is missing there
over by these clergymen should be avoided, so from. There must be a sufficient complaint, long as the clergy thereof combed their hair or there is no foundation for a judgment; and behind their ears and sang through their noses? where there is a necessary fact lacking, it is Or suppose the clergy had denounced the acadincurably bad, and a verdict will not cure it
emicians for teaching the lascivious angles of Indefiniteness and uncertainty in a complaint, geometry, or unfolding the unholy mysteries of however, are not cause for demurrer, hence it algebra, or encouraging the contemplation follows that that question cannot well be urged of the deleterious principles of geology, would in testing the sufficiency of a complaint when that have been libellous ? Is not the one first challenged by an assignment of error in charge as ridiculous and manifestly baseless as the appellate court. The usual remedy for in- | the other ? To justify the court's decision it definiteness and uncertainty is by a motion to must be conceded that to accuse an academy make more specific.”
of teaching or permitting dancing has the
natural tendency to bring it into odium, unpopThe following clever comment on the case of ularity or contempt. This can hardly be true. St. James Military Academy v. Gaiser, appears The world has moved considerably since 'The in the August number of the Green Bag: Waltz' was so vehemently denounced by the
“It is but a step from poesy to dancing. It pious and saintly Lord Byron. It is now reseems to this chair that the Supreme Court of | called that David danced before the Lord, that
Hatton danced himself into the Lord Chan were constitutional, Reed promptly said " yes," cellorship before Queen Elizabeth, and that the other with equal readiness said “no.” The dancing is taught at the government's expense, judge admitted both to practice without further or at all events publicly favored, at West Point." questioning, saying that two young men who
could answer offhand a question of such imThe Daily Revica', in an article on Legal | portance, before the Supreme Court of the Education, says:
United States had decided it, were qualified to “At a period not very far distant the office practice. system of instruction was practically the only
The path to admission is no longer so short method by which the candidate for admission and easy as that travelled by Reed and his to the bar could obtain the necessary prelimin
friend. The boy who has no college diploma ary education; but the introduction of modern must pass a regent's examination in English business methods into the law office and the composition, advanced English, first year Latin, general employment of stenographers and type arithmetic, algebra, geometry, United States writers have relegated the student to the back- and English history, civics and economics, or ground. In the busy office he no longer has their substantial equivalents, then he must dethe advantage of intimate intercourse with his vote three years to the study of the law before preceptor and familiar knowledge of the rou he can present himself before the State Board tine of business whereby he was once able to
of Law Examiners for examination. acquire a thorough training in the practice and The rapid growth of law schools, both in principles of the law. He is either a mere number and size of classes, only keeps pace clerk with little leisure for study or else he is with the demand for adequate legal education. simply tolerated as an inmate of the office, Connected, as many of them are, with great browsing among the books and picking up the universities they afford an opportunity for some work in a desultory and unsystematic way.
general culture as well as the technical training The scope of modern practice has broadened of the professional school. Two years of unso wonderfully that the narrow range of the old disturbed study under the guidance of a corps system is no longer adequate. Commercial of professors having no other duty than the enterprise, the multiplication of corporations, instruction of their students should be the the varied investments of capital have devel- equivalent of twice that time spent in a busy oped a new school of lawyers who rarely appear
law office without direction and amid constant in court, but by their skillful management of interruptions. vast business interests command the largest re
Office experience is of course indispensible tainers, and an enviable position in the com
to the practical knowledge of the law, but it munity. Such practitioners have no use for can no longer be considered the adequate and the student in their offices and no time to train complete method of legal education which it the novice. Again in New York State at least
was under former conditions. the continued elevation of requirements for admission to practice make more irksome the The Supreme Court of New Jersey say in solitary work of the student.''
the case of Irnoult v. Arnoult, 31 Atl. Rep. Only four States, Delaware, Minnesota, New 600, that the existence of influence which arises York and Pennsylvania require any standard of from unlawful or in moral relations, operating general education and in twenty-five of the on a testator when his will is made, does not States there are no preliminary requirements for raise a presumption against the instrument, but admission except a good moral character. will be regarded as il significant fact, which
It is said that Hon. Thomas B. Reed and an- calls for a close and suspicious scrutiny. The other presented themselves for examination be- | law permits a man to leave all his property, fore a judge in San Francisco at the time when which he may by will dispose of, to his mistress, the legal ender acts of Congress were assailed and to ignore his wife, if he does so with free, as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court hud sound and disposing mind, pursuant to the not yet passed upon them. Asked if such laws I formalities which the law describes.
WRIGHT AND CO. V. HENNESSEY.
THE LAW RELATING TO BOYCOTTS. sions contained in Acts of Parliament, relating to
Very truly yours, DECISION OF QUEENS BENCH DIVISION IN WRIGHT
John F. DILLON. & Co. v. HENNESSEY.
PROCEEDINGS AND JUDGMENT IN QUEEN'S BENCHI
Queen's Bench Division (before Mr. Baron Pollock and
a Special Jury.) Editor of the Albany Law Journal :
The London Times of July 27, 1895, contains an This was an action brought by Messrs. Samuel authentic report of the case of Wright & Co. v. Wright & Co., of the Crown Works, Amherst road, Hennessey, which I enclose,
IIackney, fibrous plaster manufacturers, against Mr. It relates to an important subject which is rapidly Daniel Hennessey, of Club Union buildings, Clerkundergoing legislative and judicial development. enwell road, the organizing secretary of the National The action was tried before Mr. Baron Pollock and Association of Operative Plasterers, for (1) damages a special jury on the Queen's Bench Division on for maliciously inducing and endeavoring to induce July 26, 1895, resulting in a judgment for damages persons to break contracts with the plaintiffs, and in favor of the plaintiffs and an injunction to gnard for libel; (2) an injunction restraining the defendand protect the rights which that judgment estal) ant from inducing or endeavoring to induce Messrs. lished. The case decides the following three Colls & Sons to break a contract made by them propositions:
with the plaintiffs in respect of work at the Pavil1. Under the common law of England, no person
ion Theatre, Whitechapel; (3) an injunction reor association of persons has a right to boycott an
straining the defendant from continuing to write or other; for example to say to another, if you do not publish the libels complained of. employ members of such and such organizations we
Mr. Lawson Walton, Q. C., Mr. T. W. Chitty and will injure you in your business by inducing em
Mr. Frank Newbolt appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. ployers to refuse to employ you or to break their Robson, Q. C. and Mr. A. H. Ruegg, Q. C., for the
defendant. contracts with you, or by inducing the men employed by you to strike.
Mr. Lawson Walton, Q. C., in opening the case,
said that the defendant had attempted to ruin the 2. Such conduct if done intentionally and for the purpose of injuring the person so boycotted is in plaintiffs by malignant libels and interference with law malicious, and is actionable in damages.
the plaintiffs' contracts. The action was brought
by the plaintiffs, not as an attack on trade unionism, 3. Under the existing Procedure Acts in England but in seif-defence. Vr. Samuel Wright, a member such an action for damages may be brought, and
of the plaintiff firm, formed a combination of masthere may be united therewith an application for an
ter plasterers. Mr. Peek, a master plasterer, had a injunction restraining the defendants from inducing difference with the defendant, and the men who or endeavoring to induce persons to break al contract
were working for him were withdrawn. Wright made with the plaintiff, and from continuing to
lent Peek some men, and thereupon persecution folwrite or publish libels concerning the plaintill in
lowed. The plaintiffs' names were inserted in a connection with his business.
"black list” by the defendant's society. In JanuI send you the report of this case, thinking you
ary, 18933, the plaintiffs entered into a contract with would like to lay it before the readers of the JOURNAL.
Messrs. Patman & Fotheringham, and on January 4 Concerning the case I beg only to observe that
the defendant wrote and sent to Messrs. Patman & the substantive rights affirmed in the first and
Fotheringham the following letter: second of the above propositions must be the same in the United States as in England. It would be “Vutional lssociation of Operative Plasterers, Lonan outrage on the fundamental and primordial rights
don District Committee's Department, 85 Weedingof persons if such a course as was pursued by the
ton road, Kentish-toron, N. W., Jan. 4, 1893: defendant towards the plaintiff's could be pursued
DEAR SIRS. I am "instructed by the above with impunity. As to the third proposition, the committee to ask whether it is with your knowledge granting of an injunction in the same action which and consent that the sub-contractor, S. Wright, who established the right of the plaintiffs to damages, 1 is executing work for your firm in St. Paul's churchmay observe that it is a needful remedy and one yard, is employing men other than plasterers to do broader perhaps than would be afforded in many of plasterer's work; and I am further instructed to the States of the United States, even in those that inform you that the said S. Wright, owing to have Codes of Procedure. It rests upon the provi- | his previous action, has been declared by the
above committee, and endorsed by the whole of
In May the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the members, to be an unfair employer. The plas-Messrs. Sage & Co., and on May 16 the following terers' work referred to is the fixing of fibrous plas
was sent by the defendant to them : ter. I enclose copy of working rules and by-laws “ National Association of Operative Plasterers, etc. for your perusal. No. 3 of the latter relates to this
From George Cole, District Secretary, David llenmatter, in which you will see that it is impossible nesscy, Organizer, May 16, 1894. for any plasterer to finish the work now being fixed.
DEAR SIRS — I write you in reference to the folCommittee instruct me to inform you that un
lowing upon the works of Messrs. Colls, situated at less Mr. Wright is removed they will be reluctantly Ryelane, Peckham, Messrs. Jones and lliggins" compelled to take steps to prevent the men from finishing the work. We shall esteem it a favor if premises. Your firm are doing some fibrous ceil
ings, and as the man to whom you intrusted this you please reply at your earliest convenience.
work is known as an unfair employer, we have to Sir, on behalf of the committee, yours obedi- inform you that the members of this association are ently, D. HENNESSEY,
not perunitted to work upon the same works as Organizing Secretary.
them, and as we have several members.engaged Messrs. Patman & Fotheringham.”
upon the above works the presence of these men is The object was to boycott Mr. Wright. Messrs. causing considerable friction. We therefore have Patman & Fotheringham refused to give way and to ask you for your intervention by getting these to dismiss the plaintiffs, but endeavored to bring men removed, and thus prevent any trouble arising about a reconciliation. In June, 1893, the plaintiff's upon the above works. Thanking you for a reply entered into a contract with Messrs. Watkins & by return of post. Company to supply and fix certain fibrous plaster
I remain yours faithfully, work at South Kensington. Thereupon, a deputa
D. HENNESSEY. tion headed by the defendant waited upon them, To Messrs. Sage & Co., Gray's-inn-road.” and the result was that Messrs. Watkins were compelled to discharge the plaintiffs. In 1894, the In July, 1894, the plaintiff's contracted with Mr. plaintiffs entered into a contract with the School | Roome to supply iind fix certain fibrous plaster corBoard for London to do certain plastering work, vices, when on the 19th of that month the defendand on February 2, the defendant wrote the follow
ant induced Roome to break his contract with the ing letter to Jr. Perry, the assistant architect of plaintiffs and to refuse to allow them to proceed the School Board :
with the work. In the months of September and
October, 1894, the plaintiffs contracted with Messrs. “ National Asso ion of Operative Plasterers, C., February 2, 1894. Gruvel-lune :
('olls & Sons to do certain plastering work at the DEAR SIR – I am sorry to have to again trouble
Pavilion Theatre, Whitechapel, under the super
vision of the architect, Mr. Runtz. Thereupon the you in reference to the question of sub-contracting, but seeing upon the schools in Gravel-lane. Hounds- defendant on October 1 sent the following letter to
Messrs. Colls & Sons: (litch, there are men employed by Mr. Wright, il sub-contractor, of Ilackney, to do plasterers' work. “Nationul 1ssoriation of Operative Plusterors. Lonilon I might further state that these men are not plaster District Committee. From George Cole, District ers at all. I must remind you that ihis is not the Secretary, Daniel Ilenuessey, Organizing Seiretury, first time I have been compelled to draw your at ('lub Union-buildings, Clerkenwell, E.C.: tention to this said sub-contractor, and if this man
October 1, 1894. is permitted to do this work, nothing but scamped DEAR SIRS It is with much regret that I have work and inferior workmanship will be the result;
to approach your firm again, but upon your work at also a great injustice will be done to the organized the Pavilion Theatre, Whitechapel, there has been plastereis of London, whose rules will not permit introduced Mr. Wright and his men, and, as you, them to work for sub.contractors upon the board's Sir, are aware, for some time past this man's opworks. Trusting you will give this pour early all-position to the organized plasterers of London have tention, and thanking you in anticipation for an
caused il revulsion of feeling throughout London, early and favorable reply,
and no man worthy of the name will work for or on I remain yours faithfully,
any works where he is employed. It does appear D. IIENNESSEY, Org. Sec. N. A. (). P’. somewhat strange that your firm should be so perP. S.-There is no specialty in this work, and Mr. sistent in introducing this man. We have done all Grover of Islington, is the builder.
that lays in our power to prevent friction with your To Mr. Perry, Architect to the London School | firm, and do hope that you will not allow the present Board."
good feeling to be strained. Should Nr. Wright,
and his men be allowed to remain on the works, we said that Mr. Wright's men did their work well cannot be held responsible for what may occur. and he did not find that good men would not go Trusting you will in the interest of all concerned near Wright's men. give this matter your consideration. It cannot be On cross-examination the witness said that the that this man has good or efficient men, for such contract with Wright had to be broken, because all will not go near him. Again expressing regret for the union men were withdrawn, and Runtz, the having to trouble you, and thanking you in antici- architect, was anxious that the work should go on. pation for a favorüble reply,
IIe (the witness) refused to enter into a conspiracy I remain, yours faithfully,
to ruin Wright. D. HENNESSEY.
Mr. Collins, manager for Messrs. Colls & Sons, To Messrs. Colls & Sons, Contractors.”'
examined by Mr. Chitty, said, --I was manager on In that letter the motive of the defendant was the job at the Pavilion Theatre. On October 17, the cynically avowed. Messrs. Colls, however, bravely men were called out, and on October 18, Mr. Wright's refused to cancel the contract; the result was that men were also called out. I saw Mr. Hennessey on a strike ensued and ultimately Messrs. Colls were the 19th, and Hennessey asked whether Wright compelled to throw Messrs. Wright over. If such would come back again. I said “No.” Wright's a state of things were allowed to continue, Mr. work had always given iis satisfaction. We broke Wright would be a ruined man, as it would be quite our contract with Wright. impossible for him to continue to carry on his busi Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg.--We broke our
contract with Wright on October 19. Mr. Verdon Mr. Charles Watkins, surveyor and estate manager, represented all the trades. The men themselves do was then called and examined by Mr. Chitty, and not refuse to work with Wright's men. Our idea is said, -In June, 1893, I instructed the plaintiff's to
that it is due to Mr. Hennessey's action. Directly do work at 1, Bottesmore-gardens, South-Kensing- the men were assured by us that Wright's men ton. The work was started, when I received an in
would not come back, they returned to work. timation from Doyley and Co. I wrote that the
Mr. E. A. Runtz, an architect, carrying on busiplasterers must leave. In September, defendant
ness in Moorgate-street, examined by Mr. Chitty, and others called at my office. IIe said unless I fell said, I was architect to the Pavilion Theatre, Mileinto line with other builders they would be obliged end. On October 18, I had to tell Wright's men to to call out the union men. The defendant called go off the job as the other men would not go on again on the following Saturday. I went to the while they were there. works and found the men on strike. I saw the le Cross-examined by Vr. Ruegg: – Wright's men fendant and others. I wrote to Wright's men, say were doing their work extremely well, and behaved ing, I could not allow Wright to finish the work.
Cross-examined by Jir. Ruegg. — There was Mr. Beazley, a process server, said that on October dispute about the men's wages being kept buck. I 19, about 9.20 il. m., he served Mr. Hennessey with am not a member of the Association of Master in injunction restraining him from inducing Messrs. Builders. I cannot say I knew that the invariable Colls & Sons to break their contract with the plainrule is to pay the men up to Friday night. We paid tills. up till Thursday night.
Mr. II. R. Perry, assistant architect for the school James Marcham, examined by Mr. J. W. Chitty, board for London, said: While Wright was doing said, -I was fixing work for Wright & Co. in Janu- the work at Gravel lane, Houndsditch, I received ary, 1893. The defendant told me they were de- the letter of February 2, 1894. Wright's men were termined to smashi Mr. Wright if it cost them £6,000, doing the work very well. At Greenwich I found and that they had got that amount in hand.
that instead of nine screws to a slab, which I always Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg: -Wright paid the insist on for school board work, Wright's men were same as other men. Mine was piece-work.
putting in six. I have examined five schools done Re-examined.--) was content with my wages as by Wright, and the ceilings are satisfactory, showlather and to work for Wright and put up plaster. ing the work must have been well done. Mr. Peter, foreman to Patman and Fotheringham,
Mr. Yates, a clerk to Messrs. Sage, of Gray's Inn said that the defendent told him the plaitiffs' men
lane, said he received letters from Hennessey. were scamping their work by not fixing the slabs Mr. Samuel Wright, managing partner of the with screws.
Ilis objection wils unfounded. Mr. plaintiff firm, said he estimated his loss at some J. H. Colls, builder of Coleman-street, who was em thousands of pounds. His business had fallen off ployed at the Pavilion Theatre, Whitechapel, and over fifty per cent, since January. whose firm Messrs. Colls & Sons, entered into a con Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg.
Over these partract with the plaintiff firm for the plastering there, I ticular cases I have lost £85 4s. 3d., which, together