« ForrigeFortsett »
city of Boston a wagon upon which is displayed such false, malicious and libelous signs; and from standing and continuing to stand out, near and concerning such places of business of the complainants; and from patrolling the same and from intercepting the persons and customers entering the place of business of said complainant, until the further order of our said court or some justice thereof. Aug. 1, 1900.
AMERICAN WOOLEN COMPANY v. THE WEAVERS UNION et al.
Writ of Injunction.
We, therefore, in consideration of the premises, do strictly enjoin and command you, the said respondents, and each of you and all and every the persons before named, to desist and refrain from patrolling the streets in front of or near the mills of the said complainant, and from detaining, threatening, assaulting, intimidating or in any way attempting to intimidate the employees of said complainant; and from in any way interfering with the conduct of business by the complainant as now carried on and conducted by it; and from annoying, hindering or preventing any person or persons who now are or may hereafter become employees of said complainant, or desirous of becoming such, from entering into any contract relations with it or to deprive it thereof. And you are further enjoined and commanded to desist and refrain from attempting by threats or intimidations to prevent said employees or any of them, or such persons as may desire to become employees, from securing food or lodging in the town of Plymouth; and from conspiring or contriving, by threats or intimidations, to annoy, hinder, interfere with or prevent any person or persons, firms or corporations from entering into business relations with said complainant or from continuing therein, until the further order of our said court or some justice thereof.
June 3, 1902. 825 EQUITY.
MASSACHUSETTS BREWERIES COMPANY v. MCCARTHY et al.
Decree enjoining Defendants.
This cause came on to be heard upon the report of the master, by whom all said causes were said to be heard together, upon the plaintiff's motion or temporary injunction, argued by counsel; and thereupon, in consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that until the further order of this court the defendants and each of them and the members of the said organization or union,
their and each of their committees, members, associates, agents and servants, be and they each are hereby enjoined and restrained:
1. From injuring, molesting or hindering, by any threats, or intimidations or by any kind of coercion, any person now in the employment of either of the plaintiffs from remaining in such employment; and from hindering, by any threat or intimidation or any kind of coercion, any person who may desire to enter into the employment of either of the plaintiffs.
2. From injuring or molesting, by any threat or intimidation or by any kind of coercion, any person, firm or corporation who have been or desire to be the customers of either of the plaintiffs from continuing to be such customers, or in any way interfering in the business of any such customers with the view or purpose of preventing or hindering such person, firm or corporation in the sale of beer made by the plaintiff or either of them.
3. From publishing, circulating or exhibiting any card or notice like or similar in purport or effect to Exhibit No. 1, referred to in the masters' report; and from maintaining such cards or notices by which the goods of the plaintiff have been sold; or by representing or causing to be represented to the public, or to dealers in beer, that the beer made by the plaintiffs is "unfair," and from intimidating or hindering or molesting any person in the purchase of such beer.
By the court, Aug. 20, 1902.
The first exhibit in these papers is entitled, "Replying to statement made by the master brewers. Reference is made to the circular letter dated May 24, 1902, issued by the master brewers of Boston. Statements therein refuted."
R. S. BRINE v. BROTHERHOOD TEAMSTERS et al.
Writ of Injunction.
We, therefore, in consideration of the premises, do strictly enjoin and command you, the said respondents, and each of you and all and every person before named, to desist and refrain from patrolling the sidewalks or streets in front or in vicinity of the premises occupied or used by the complainant in its business; and from assaulting the complainant's officers, employees or drivers, or in any way interfering with the conduct of business by the complainant as now carried on and conducted by it, in the public streets or otherwise; and from intimidating, by threats or with physical force or violence, any of its drivers or employees, or any person or persons who now are or may hereafter be in its employment, or desirous of entering the same, from entering or continuing in it; or by obstruct
ing or interfering with such persons or any others in entering or leaving complainant's premises, or in complainant's management of its business, or the performance by the complainant's employees of their work; or by any scheme or conspiracy among themselves or with others, organized for the purpose of annoying, hindering, interfering with or preventing any person or persons who now are or may hereafter be in the employment of the complainant, or desirous of entering the same, from entering it or from continuing therein; or from conspiring or continuing, by threats or intimidations, to prevent any person or persons, firms or corporations from doing business with the complainant. This injunction to continue in force until Jan. 27, 1902.
By the court, Jan. 24, 1902. 658 EQUITY.
Fifty-ninth Congress, First Session.
H. R. 18446.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, April 20, 1906.
Mr. Pearre (by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary and ordered to be printed.
A BILL TO REGULATE THE ISSUANCE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURE THEREON, AND TO LIMIT THE MEANING OF "CONSPIRACY" IN CERTAIN CASES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That no restraining order or injunction shall be granted by any court of the United States, or a judge or the judges thereof, in any case between an employer and an employee or between employers and employees, or between employees, or between persons, or between persons employed to labor and persons seeking employment as laborers, or between persons seeking employment as laborers, or involving or growing out of a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment unless necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property or to a property right of the party making the application, for which injury there is no adequate remedy at law, and such property or property right must be particularly described in the application, which must be in writing and sworn to by the applicant or by his, her, or its agent or attorney. And for the purposes of this act no mere right to continue the relation of employer and employee or to assume or create such relation with any particular person or persons, or at all, or to carry on business of any particular kind or at any particular place, or at all, shall be construed, held,
considered, or treated as property or as constituting a property right.
SEC. 2. That in cases arising in the courts of the United States or coming before said courts, or before any judge or the judges thereof, no agreement between two or more persons concerning the terms or conditions of employment of labor, or the assumption or creation, or termination of any relation between employer or employee, or concerning any act or thing to be done or not to be done with reference to or involving or growing out of a labor dispute shall constitute a conspiracy or other criminal offense or be punished or prosecuted as such unless the act or thing agreed to be done or not to be done would be unlawful if done by a single individual, nor shall the entering into or the carrying out of any such agreement be restrained or enjoined unless such act or thing agreed to be done would be subject to be restrained or enjoined under the provisions, limitations, and definition contained in the first section of this act. SEC. 3. That all Acts and parts of Acts in conflict with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.
ISSUE OF INJUNCTIONS.
For the purpose of establishing how generally injunctions were issued correspondence was had, and personal visits were made to many of the county seats throughout the Commonwealth. Outside Suffolk and Essex counties, it cannot be said that the petitions for injunctions are very numerous. The inquiry was made as to the issues during the last six years. The reports from clerks are summarized below:
Barnstable County.· None ever issued in the county.
Bristol County. Relative to the number and character of injunctions in labor matters issued from our court within six years, would say that so far as we have been able to ascertain no such injunctions have been granted by either the Supreme Judicial Court or the Superior Court in this county during said period.
Dukes County. In the last six years I find docket entry of but four, and in neither of those was the "temporary" injunction made permanent.
Essex County. The following cases have been before the courts:
J. H. Horne & Sons Company v. J. T. Bradley et als. No. 2001 of January, 1907.
E. T. Reynolds et ali v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters et als. Pending. Eq. 116.
W. J. Young Machinery Company v. Machinists Union No. 471 et als. Pending. Eq. 117.
Essex Machine Company v. same. Pending. Eq. 118.
Boston Machine Works Company et ali v. same. Pending. Eq. 144. Eug. A. Hennessey et al. v. John Delaney et als. Pending. Eq. 232.
Ipswich Mills v. Charles Andros, S. J. C. 1139. Pending. Walton & Logan Company v. I. Boynton Armstrong et als. No. 2565 of 1904.
Patrick J. Harney et ali v. same.
No. 2566 of 1904.
No. 2567 of 1904.
No. 2569 of 1906.
George E. Nicholson Company v. same. No. 2570 of 1906.
No. 2572 of 1906.
Arthur E. Gloyd v. same.
Local No. 27, International CarNo. 2576 of 1903.
No. 2577 of 1903.
No. 2578 of 1903.
James H. Hassett et al. v. same.
No. 2580 of 1903.
Thomas C. Miller et al. v. same. No. 2582 of 1903.
Charles N. Dennett et al. v. same.
James Neal et al. v. same.
No. 2583 of 1903.
In the Horne, Reynolds, Walton & Logan, Harney and Donovan cases, injunctions, either temporary or permanent, were issued.
Franklin County. — During the past ten years we have had no injunction in any proceeding relating to labor questions. I much doubt if ever there has been filed in our county a bill dealing with a labor difficulty.
Hampden County.· There have been filed in the Superior Court of this county six bills in equity since the year 1900, in which the complainants have sought relief by securing injunctions.
The first case was finished in the year 1900, the case of Paul J. Plant, president, et als., v. Henry K. Woods, president, et als., in which the complainants prayed for an injunction enjoining and restraining the respondents from interfering with the plaintiffs' association, or from intimidating by threats or otherwise any person or persons or corporation who are employing or may hereafter employ or desire to employ any of the members of the plaintiff association. No injunction issued in this case, but after a full hearing in the Superior Court and a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, upon an appeal by the defendants to the Supreme Judicial Court, that court