« AnteriorContinuar »
with other small losses, comes to £94 11s. I pay ¡ dispute. From my point of view it would be the the full rate of wages to every skilled and competent happiest thing that Wright should go and our men
[The names of several men were put to the should stop. I object to Wright employing laborwitness, and he said in each case that they were not ers to do plasterers' work. Mr. Watkins voluntarily competent plasterers.] He continued: I paid the offered to employ our men instead of Wright's men. men the rates they asked. Some men left the union Mr. Botright, examined by Mr. Robson, Q. C., to remain in my employ. I had nothing to do with said – I am a plasterer. I have worked for Wright. the Fibrous Plasterers' Association.
The usual rate is 9fd.; he paid 9d. I worked overThis was the case for the plaintiffs.
time and got nothing for it. Mr. Robson, Q. C., in opening the case for the de
Cross-examined by Mr. Walton, Q. C.-I am a fendant, said he quite admitted the right of the bona file plasterer. Wright said I was not a master to make any contract he liked. These men
plasterer. said: “We disapprove of certain employers." Any
This was the case for the defense. man had a right to say: “I won't work for that Counsel on botli sides having addressed the jury, master, and I won't have anything to do with any Mr. Baron Pollock, in summing up, said that the other man who aids that master." If any section of form of action was of modern origin and had not men took up an unreasonable position society would hitherto come very much into the courts. inevitably protect itself against such conduct. A had a right to do that which injured another man man had a right over his own labor, and a right unless log acts he had a legal right to do. In this over the labor of others where he was not guilty of country every one had a right to express his opinion malice. a single man could not possibly compete clearly with reference to the questions of the day. with capital. Where al man sought to injure But if an individual, in order to enforce his paranother for the sake of injuring him it was ma ticular views, did an act knowingly and intending licious; but where a man sought to control his own to inflict an injury upon another, the law did not labor and to persuade another to control his in the allow that to be done. Nor could at man say “If same way as the man himself did it was not ma you don't employ a certain class of people we shall licious. Where a man pursued his own interests, do certain things which will injure you in your and in doing so incidentally injured another there business.” The question was, did the defendant was no malice. Throughout this case there was say to himself, “I will go to these people and will absolutely no evidence of malice. Mr. Hennessey write such letters as will prevent them from emwas never told: “I have a contract which you are ploying Mr. Wright, and then he will be obliged to seeking to make me break."
come to our terms and not to exercise any free will Mr. Hennessey, the defendant, was then examined of his own." His lordship left the following quesby Mr. Robson, Q. C., and said: “I am organizing tions to the jury: (1) Do you think that the course secretary of the National Association of Operative of conduct pursued by the defendant with regard Plasterers. My duties are to increase the member to the employment of the plaintiff Wright was imship, and if I find a breach of the rules, to try and proper in the sense of being malicious -i. e., with get it rectified. If a dispute arises between masters the intention of injuring him? (2) Do you think and men I go and see what it really is. I put it that the letters which were written were written before the committee, and they advise me whether i with an improper motive to injure plaintiff or it is necessary to take action or whether they will were written bona fide and with the honest intention let it go on as it is. I never had any communica-, of discharging a duty ? tion with Messrs. Maxwell. On September 8, I The jury found that there was malice on the part went to Mr. Watkins, with Mr. Verion, and told of the defendant in the sense in which his lordship him that his notice that he would only pay up to had used the word “malicious," and they returned Thursday night was causing friction. Wright's a verilict of £500 damages for the libels and 1300 name was never mentioned. Watkins said he for inducing the breaches of contract. should do as he liked. After that there was il Ilis lordship gave judgment accordingly, and strike. Watkins then changed his mind. I did not granted an injunction restraining the defendant know then that Wright was employed there. The from inducing, or endeavoring to induce, Messrs. objection we had to Mr. Wright was that he was Colls & Sons from breaking their contract with the continually employing men and not paying them plaintiffs in respect of work at the Pavilion Theatre, what we considered the trade union rate of wages. Whitechapel, and from inducing or endeavoring to
Cross-examined by Mr. Lawson Walton, Q. ('.-- | induce any person or persons to break contracts I regarded Wright as an unfair employer. My busi-made, or hereafter to be made, with the plaintiffs. ness was to control the dispute. To get rid of His lordship also granteil an injunction restrain. Wright would be the specdiest way of settling the ling the defendant from continuing to write or pub
lish the libels complained of. A stay of execution apparently was that he lost the contract. In anwas granted upon the terms of the defendant pay- other case the firm which had given the contract ing £500 into court within a week.
for fibrous ceiling to Wright was informed by the
organizing secretary that the removal of Wright's EDITORIAL OF THE TIMES (LONDON) ON WRIGHT
mien was necessary ; "as we have several members & Co. v. HENNESSEY.
engaged upon the above works the presence of Questions as to labor have of late for some reason these men is causing friction.” Messrs. Colls, who been more heard of in our courts than lised to be
had employed Wright as sub-contractor in connecthe case, and the trial which we reported on Satur tion with works carried on at the Pavilion Theatre, day in the action" Wright & Co. v. Hennessey" were told, in a formal communication addressed to is an example of a class of disputes with which them, that “this man's opposition to the organized judges and juries have had frequently to deal. plasterers of London have caused a revulsion of Many years ago parliament modified the labor laws. feeling throughout London, and no man worthy of It removed the legal disabilities of which trade
the name will work for or on any works where he unions complained. The property of such associa is employed. * Should Mr. Wright and his tions was protected by law. They were no longer men be allowed to remain on the works, we candeemed unlawful associations merely because they
not be responsible for what may occur. Messrs. contemplated the supporting of strikes. But both
Colls not. at first yielding to this threat, a strike here and in America, and in the latter much more
took place, and in the end Wright seems to have than with us, the recent action of trades unions has
been thrown over. There were insinuations brought them into collision with the courts; and it wholly baseless, as it turned out — that the work has been necessary sharply to remind too energetic which he carried out was of an inferior quality, secretaries of unions that the removal of disabilities and that his rate of pay was lower than the trade has not conferred upon these bodies privileges and allowed. But the only real defence was that stated immunity from all legal control. Sometimes it is by Hennessey in cross-examination: “I regarded the case of a body of workmen or their representa- Wright as an unfair employer. My business was to tive going to an employer and saying that, unless control the dispute.
I object to Wright he discharges 1, who has broken a trade union employing laborers to do plasterers' work.” code, they will throw up their work. Sometimes it
The way in which English law deals with this is an attempt to induce people not to sell goods or
class of dispute is open to criticism. It has not materials to a builder who has incurred the dis- attempted to define with nicety the point at which pleasure of the local branch of the mion. The
the right of every one to insist upon a particular substance of such cases as - Templeton v. Russell," form of contract of service and to induce others to “ Flood v. Jackson," and in Wright v. Hennessey do likewise becomes intolerable tyranny. Our is a threat by some one "unless you conduct your courts have got out of this difficulty, as out of so 6 business as we direct, employ those whom we
many others, by the use of the magical word * approve, we shall make it unpleasant for you and
" malicious "—that word which means so much or "do our best to ruin you." In the action tried
sa little, and the learning about which is half the before Mr. Baron Pollock the defendant was the stock-in-traule of an English lawyer. They have organizing secretary of the National Association said that it is permissible to do all or most of the of Operative Plasterers, A master plasterer things which Hennessey actually did, provided such named Peek having haul a difference with llen- conduct be not malicious in the sense of being done nessey, the secretary, Peek's workmen
to injure. They have not made it very clear under ordered to withdraw from his service, which what circumstances such conduct could have any they did. Wright came to his l'escue ind jent other object. They have been content to lay it him workmen. This, it was alleged, brought down that if the intention is to injure some one upon Wright the wrath of the National Associa- the courts will interfere. The jury is thus left tion. His name was inserted in its black list," master of the situation; it may absolve or condemn and other means were taken to coerce him. The according is it thinks the boycotting is spiteful or organizing secretary wrote to Messrs. Patman not. In the action tried on Saturday the jury took and Fotheringham, under whom Wright had a serious view of the matter, for it returned against taken a sub-contract, that “wless Mr. Wright the secretary al verdict of £500 damages in respect is removed they will be reluctantly compelled of the libels contained in the letters as to the style to take steps to prevent the men from finishing of Mr. Wright's work, and £300 for bringing about the work." 1 deputation was sent to another the breaches of contract from which he was a firm which had given Wright il contract for fibrous sufferer. It may be doubted whether the law as it plaster work at South Kensington, and the result | stands is in all respects perfect; and whether it will
not be practicable to distinguish with more pre "the organized plasterers of London "is not above cision between the legitimate alvocacy of a par- the law of the realm - - and in the long run it will ticular policy and attempts to enforce it by ruining be better even for the organized plasterers " that men in their business. But there is no question, this is so. that many of the things brought to
light in “Wright v. IIennessey" could not safely be tolcrated. Suppose that every group of persons
Abstracts of Recent Decisions. with supposed interests in common wrote letters
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS and generally behaved towards all who seemed to
Wbere a bill in equity to restrain it probe in their way as the National Association of Operative Plasterers clic! through Mr.
posed issue and sale of municipal bonds shows no llennes
other valid reason why such issue and sale should sey; suppose that
every tradesman sought to obtain custom by taking organized means to ruin
be estoppeil, except that the proceeds of the sale of
such bonds will go into, and be expended by, imhis neighbors who dealt elsewhere; that merchants trusted less to supply and demand than to threats i proper hanus, it is error to enjoin the issue and sale
of such bonds, or 10 go further with an injunction, of retaliation, and every trade circular wow mp in such a case, than to restrain the delivery of such with a notice that, unless the particular wine, coals,
bonds when issues, to manthorized hands, and to silk, cotton, were ordered of the sender within twenty-four hours he would do his best 10 ruin the probibit the proceeds thereof from going into the
hands of, and being expended by, unauthorizeil man whose custom was solicited. Suppose that
persons. (City of Tampa 1. Salomonson (Fla.), 17 each of these groups acted in this spirit, and that
Soutlı. Rep. 581.) in consequence contracts were freely broken and
WILLS.. ESTATE DEVISEN.-Onder a devise 'to men in large numbers were dismissed. Could society subsist with this bellum omnium contra omnes ?
my adopted danghter, II, to have and to hold for
And after The evidence in Wright's case was that the plain and during the term of her natural life. till's business bad fallen off 50 per cent. in conse
the death of Ill I give and devise the reversion or
remainder to her lawful issue, to have and to hold quence of the action of Hennessey. There would be such a loss all round is “verybody acted in his
the same in common to them, their heirs and assigns, spirit and sent out wholesale messages of war to the
forever. And, in case the said I should die withknife. Mr. Hennessey writes as if the operative out leaving lawful issue, then the aforesaid real plasterers were an ancient caste and he and his
estate shall revert to my estate, and I give and friends full-blown Brahmins who will not brook Mr.
devise the same to my heirs under the interstate Wright's parials touching things meant for sacred
laws." -II takes fee: the words - lawful issue"? bands.
meaning lineal descendants, and having prima facie, It is astonishing how old abuses reappear under the force of words of limitation, send the words “in
common For some centuries trade corporations
not being such superaddeel words of all over Europe exercised various forms of monop limitation or distributive modification as will make oly. Strangers were not allowed to ply their trailes the words “lawful issue" Words of purchase. within a city until they had become "free" of it. (Grimes i Shirk, l'enn., 12 Alt. Rep. 113.) A long period of apprenticeship was an essential WiLL. VESTED REVALNDERS. -Testator devised condition to the practising of most professions and his estate to trustees, a portion of the income being industries. Each town, and indeed each industry. payable to his rife, who wis authorized, during the were ruled by by-laws frame with absolute disre- trust, toolispose of one-third of the personal propgard of the interests of the whole community, :underty by will, ined the remainder of the income to be with the exclusive object of benefiting the little paid in equal proportions to in danghter and three combinations in possession of the field.
sons ; and provided that if the daughter or either this “ sort of slavery," to use Adam Smith's phrase, of two sons should die, leaving issue', the issue which the great economist sought to destrov: should take the parent's share ; but power of «lisWherever these irksome restrictions have existent position was not given to any chill. The trust they have been hurtful to trade, and their removal was to end on a fixerl date, and the property was in England proved the beginning of an era of pros- then to be paid to testator's legal representatives : perity. Let Mr. Hennessey :ind other 'energetic Held, that the remainders did not rest on testator's organizing secretaries have their will, and we deallı, so that, on the death of the daughter before should soon see a system of industrial (uistes ind thie termination of the trust, her surviving husband corporate tyranny as oppressive its that exposed in became entitled to the income previously payable to the Health of Nations. It is siltisfactory to know hier, or 10 any part of the principal of the estate. that for the present, at all events, the m:indate of ( Eager v Whitney, Mass., 10 V. E. Rep. 1016.)
“But this rule must be modified in this country,
where estates are small, and the policy of our laws NEW YORK, 8 July, 1895.
is to distribute them with each generation, where Eilitor of the Albany Law Journal :
dower is one of the positive institutions of the esDEAR SIR.- The Executive Council of the Asso
tate, founded in policy, and the provision for the ciation for the Reform and Codification of the Law
widow is a part of the law of distribution, and the is glad to announce that it has arranged for the
aim of the statute is not subsistence alone, but pronext conference to be held at Brussels, in the Palais vision commensurate with the estate. Thus, a husdes Académies, from the 1st to the 4th of October,
band died in the possession of land which was not when the president of the Association, Sir Richard improved and was wholly valueless for agricultural E. Webster, K. L. M. G. Q. C. M. P. is expected purposes or lumbering. Its principal value, and to preside, and the Bourgmestre and Eschevins of practically its sole value, was in deposits of iron ore the city of Brussels will kindly entertain the Asso-contained in it. And it was held that the widow ciation.
was entitled to dower rights in the royalties realized The council will welcome to membership in the
from the lease by the guardian of minor heirs of the Association any of the American judges and lead
mineral lands which were undeveloped at the time ing jurists of the United States.
of her husband's death, and solely valuable for the FRED. Jas. TOMKINS, M. A., D. C. L.,
minerals afterwards discovered therein. This is the Member of the Council, Secretary of the Reception | correct doctrine in this country.” Committee, at the Guildhall, London.
· The English authorities should not be folP. S.- Application for membership can be made
lowed. They define dower as a provision which to Mr. Alexander, 33 (hancery lane, London; or to
the law makes for a widow out of the lands or Mr. Scott, at the time of the conference in Brussels.
tenements of husband and for her support and the F. J. T.
nurture of her children. 3
“The rules applicable in England, where landed RICT OF LIFE TENANT TO OPEN MINES.
estates are large and diversified, where the laws New York, August 12, 1895.
of inheritance are exclusive, where the theory of Ellitor of the Albany Lau Journal :
dower is substance merely, and where there is a In the Students' lIelper for July there appeared an strong disposition to free estates from even that article by Darius II. Pingrey, an article in which charge, should not obtain in the United States. there occurred in statement to the effect that imop “So a widow should not be excluded from her ened mines could be developed by a life tenant. dower interest in mineral lands which, at the death This was so extraordinary a proposition that I wrote of her husband, are unimproved and unproductive, to the editor of the Helper for Mr. Pingrey's author and are chiefly and solely valuable for the minerals ities, there being no references to authorities in the contained in them. This doctrine is in accordance article. In reply I was referred to section 370 of with the interpretation of the statutes of the States Pingrey on Real Property. That section I find to providing for dower, though it is opposed to the be as follows (with citations as given):
English rule. But the mere possessory right given “ The widow is dowable in mines which had by the l'nited States Statutes to the location of a been opened at the death of the husband, and it is mining claim is not such an estate that dower can generally held that she cannot open new mines even be predicated thereon by State legislation as against upon the lands set apart to her as dower; that is to the United States and its grantees.* say, i widow is not dowable of mineral deposits “On examination of the late Michigan case cited where there is no opened mine.'
(In re Seager's Estate, 92 Mich. 186) I find that the
whole body of Mr. Pingrey's text is adopted almost 1 Lenfers v. Henke, 73 11. 405; IIendricks v.
without a change of language from the judge's McBeth, 61 Mich. 473; Kreer v. Stotenhur, 36 Barl). opinion, and he even cites all the authorities that (N. Y.) 641; Gaines v. Mining Co., 33 N. J. Eq.
are cited by the judge in support of the general 603; Crouch v. Puryear, 1 Rand. (ta.) 258; Clift v.
doctrine, except ('oates v. Cheever, 1 Cow. 450; Clift, 87 Tenn. 17; 9 S. W. 198; Findlay v. Smith,
Washb, on Real Prop. 166; Bishop on Married Wo6 Munf. (Va.) 13-1; Sayers v. Harkinson, 110 l'em.
men, $ 240; and Scribner on Dower (2d ed.), St. 473; 11 id. 308; Irwin v. Covode, 24 Penn. St. 200-6; and he even copies the mistake of the 162; Neel v. Neel, 19 Penn. St. 323 ; Moore v. Rol-judge in citing ('list v. Clist, 87 Tenn. 17, twice. lins, 45 Me. 193; Reed v. Reed, 10 N. J. Eq. 218; Billings v. Taylor, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 460; Bishop on ? In re St. Leger's Estate, 92 Mich. 136. Married Women, 261; 1 Scribner on Dower (20 * Co. Litt. 30 h., 2 Bl. Com. 130. ed.), 200-6.
- Black v. Elkhorn Mining Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 859.
The case of Black v. Elkhorn Mining Co., 52 Fed. narily be decisive of the right of the life tenant to Rep. 859, is authority only on the point contained continue working, but, on the other hand, it has been in the sentence last given.
said that if mines have been worked or used for A close examination of the Michigan case, it is some definite purpose, that alone would not give the thought, does not warrant the position taken that a life tenant a right to continue the working." 9 life tenant may develope unopened mines. This In section 384, Mr. Kerr says: “The life tenant, was a case where the guardian of infant heirs hac
where he has a right to mine, in order to more ailopened mines on lands valuable only for the miner- vantageously pursue such work, may open new pits als contained therein, and the court held that the land sink new shafts.'" But the opening of mines widow was entitled to dower in the proceeds of the and the opening of new pits and shafts must be conmines thus opened. The court say on page 19 7 of ducted and done on the tract of land already the report:
worked, and not upon a different tract of lançı and “In the present case the grant is by operation of in a place where the mine or vein has never been the statute giving the use of all the lands of which opened or worked, " because a tenant for life has the husband was seizerl. The grant must he held no right to open new mines, the opening of new to include the use of the lands, irrespective of mines forfeiting the estate where such tenant is whether mines were opened upon them before or liable for waste. The Imerican cases, however, after the husband's death. The question here is not have greatly modlities the law of waste, so is to the impairment of one mode of enjoyment or source adopt it to the conveniences and requirements of a of profit to reach another. There is but one modle new and growing country, in order to encourage of enjoyment of the land in question, but one source tenants for life to make a reasonable use of wild and of revenue or profit. The land is susceptible of but undeveloped lands." The widow is therefor entitled to one
What I would like to know is whether the Amerithird of the amount in the hands of the petitioner." can cases have modified the doctrine of waste “to
This is thought to be unecessary to the decision adapt it to the conveniences and requirements of a of the case in hand and for that reason purely lic new and growing country
to such an extent as to tum.
justify the position taken by Mr. Pingrey in his I find that the same point is discussed by another work on Real Property? It does not seem to the work on real property just out, and il contrary con writer that they have After a diligent search I clusion arrived at. I refer to Kerr on Real Property, hve not been able to find a case that supports the recently amounced by Banks & Bro. In section Michig:court in the dictum quotes, anul upon 583, Mr. Kerr says: “Where mines, quarries, clay. which Mr. Pingrey is content to amounce the novel pits, gravel-pits, and the like, have been opened on doctrine. I trust that some one well-read in real the premises and worked by id former owner of the estate case law will furnish the wanting authority, fee, the tenant for life may continue to work them for I have a great deal depending upon being able without restriction
to find an authority that can be safely relied upon reason that such mines have been made part of to support Mr. Pingrey's position, which the Michithe profits of the land." If a mine or quarry has gan (itse certainly does not do. been worked for commercial profit, that must order
ILARRY M. ILISON.
• Billings v. Taylor, 27 Mass. (10 Pick.) 100; S. C. ? Elias v. Snowden Slate Quarries Co., L. R. 1 20 Am. Dec. 53:3; Executors of Reed v. Reed, 10 APP. ('as. 1.51, 405. N. J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 243; Rockwell 1. Mortim, in Gaines . Green Pond Iron Mining ('0., 32 13 V. J. L. (2 Beas.) 384, 389; Coates v. Cheever, 1 S. J. Ey. (i) Stewi, S6; (rouch 1. Puryer 1 Rand. Cow. (N. Y.) 460, 474; Lynn's App., 31. Penn. St. I la.) 258; S. (. 10 Am. Dec. 528. 44; Veel v. Neel, 19 Penn. S1. 323, 321.
11 Westmorland Coal ('os, Appeal, s.; l'em. St. Under a statute providing that the tenant for life | 314. shall have“ reasonable and necessary use and enjoy 1? Grines v. Green Pond Iron Mining ('0., 33 V. J. ment " of the land, the right to work mines, quarries, Eq. (6 Stew.) 603; Coates v. (heever, 1 Cox. (X. Y.) etc., will not be limited or restrained. Westmord 160, 171; liner v. Vaughan, ? Beav. 160; Whitfield land Coal Cos. Appeal, 85 lenn. St. 31.1: Kier 1. r. Bewit, ? Pr. Imus. 242. Pattersen, +1 Penn. St. :3.77; Irwin v. ('orode, 24
1. Gaines 1. Green Pond Iron Mining ('0., 3:3 Penn, St. 162.
V. J. Eq. 11; Stew) 6033: Ballantine v. Poyrer, ? · Crouch v. Puryear, 1 Rand. (la.) 258; 5. 6., 10 barw. IX. C. 110: Irwin v. ('ovode, 21 lenn. St. Am. Dec. 528.
10?; Veel v. Veel, 19 Penn. St. :323; Hastings v. * Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Vining Co., 32 (runkleton. :3 Yeats (P.) 261: Findley r. Smith), 6 V. J. Eq. (5 Stew.) 46.
Muns. (Va., 13-1; S.C., S Am. Dec. 7:33.