« EelmineJätka »
Aug. 19, 1911.]
DURING the Vacation up to and including Tuesday, the 5th Sept., all applications which may require to be immediately or promptly heard" are to be made to the Hon. Mr. Justice Horridge.
COURT BUSINESS.-The Hon. Mr. Justice Horridge will, until further notice, sit in the Lord Chief Justice's Court, Royal Courts of Justice, at 11 a.m. on Wednesday in every week, commencing on Wednesday, the 9th Aug., for the purpose of hearing such applications of the above nature as, according to the practice in the Chancery Division, are usually heard in court. No case will be placed in the judge's paper unless leave has been previously obtained, or a certificate of counsel that the case requires to be immediately or promptly heard, and stating concisely the reasons, is left with the papers. The necessary papers, relating to every application made to the Vacation judges (see notice below as to judges' papers), are to be left with the cause clerk in attendance, Chancery Registrars' Office, Room 136, Royal Courts of Justice, before one o'clock two days previous to the day on which the application is intended to be made. When the cause clerk is not in attendance, they may be left at Room 136, under cover, addressed to him, and marked outside Chancery Vacation papers, or they may be sent by post, but in either case so as to be received by the time aforesaid.
URGENT MATTERS WHEN JUDGE NOT PRESENT IN COURT CHAMBERS.-Application may be made in any case of urgency, to the judge, personally (if necessary), or by post or rail, prepaid, accompanied by the brief of counsel, office copies of the affidavits in support of the application, and also by a minute, on a separate sheet of paper, signed by counsel, of the order he may consider the applicant entitled to, and also an envelope, sufficiently stamped, capable of Chancery Official Letter: receiving the papers, addressed as follows: To the Registrar in Vacation, Chancery Registrars' Office, Royal Courts of Justice, London, W.C." On applications for injunctions, in addition to the above, a copy of the writ, and a certificate of writ issued, must also be sent. The papers sent to the judge will, be returned to the registrar. The address of the judge for the time being acting as Vacation judge can be obtained on application at Room 136, Royal Courts of Justice.
CHANCERY CHAMBER BUSINESS.-The chambers of Justices Joyce and Eve will be open for Vacation business on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday in each week, from ten to two o'clock.
Mr. Justice KING'S BENCH CHAMBER BUSINESS.-The Hon. Horridge will, until further notice, sit for the disposal of King's Bench business in Judges' Chambers at 11 a.m. on Tuesday and, if necessary, also on Thursday in every week, commencing on Tuesday, the 8th Aug. Probate and DIVORCE. Summonses will be heard by the registrar, at the Principal Probate Registry, Somerset House, every day during the Vacation at 11.30 (Saturdays excepted). Motions will be heard by the registrar on Wednesdays, the 16th and 30th Aug:, the 13th and 27th Sept., at the Principal Probate Registry, at 12.30. Decrees will be made absolute on Wednesdays, the 9th and 23rd Aug, the 6th, 20th, and 27th Sept. All papers for motions and for making decrees absolute are to be left at the Contentious Department, Somerset House, before two o'clock on the preceding Friday. The offices of the Probate and Divorce Registries will be opened at eleven and closed at three o'clock, except on Saturdays, when the offices will be opened at ten and closed at one o'clock.
JUDGE'S PAPERS FOR USE IN COURT.-CHANCERY DIVISION.-The following papers for the Vacation judge are required to be left with the cause clerk in attendance at the Chancery Registrars' Office, Room 136, Royal Courta of Justice, on or before one o'clock, two days previous to the day on which the application to the judge is intended to be made: 1. Counsel's certificate of urgency or note of special leave granted by the judge. 2. Two copies of writ and two copies of pleadings (if any), and any other documents showing the
CRIPWELL, PERCY, late Ilkeston, off-beer licensee. Ct. Derby and Long
Mrs Taylor), Birmingham, wardrobe
LAWRY, JOHN JENKIN, Madron, carpenter. Ct. Truro.
NUTTALL, ARTHUR MENDALL, Mansfield, plumber.
PIMBLEY, STANLEY BERTRAM, Oakham, cycle maker.
PESKETT, GEORGE HARRY, Chichester, tailor. Ct. Brighton. Aug. 8.
GAZETTE, AUG. 15.
To surrender at the High Court of Justice, in Bankruptcy. Aug. 10. HARRIS, WALTER GEORGE, Ash-rd, Stratford, contractor. HEASMAN. WILLIAM, late Dock-st, London Docks, tin-box maker. Aug. 11. Leadenhall-st, late merchant's SEWELL CULVER, FREDERICK JAMES, manager. Aug. 11.
KEMPE, LEOPOLD HEINRICH (trading as L. H. Kempe and Co.), Copthallav, financial agent. Aug. 11.
To surrender at their respective District Courts.
BRADY, GEORGE, Ilkley, commission agent. Ct. Leeds. Aug. 10.
CORBETT, F., Upper Tooting, gentleman. Ct. Wandsworth. Aug. 10.
Ct. Guildford and
Godalming. Aug. 12.
FORD, CLAUDE JOHN EVELYN, Rugby, tobacconist. Ct. Coventry. Aug. 12. FAULKNER, SAMUEL (trading as Greenwood and Faulkner), Leicester, coal merchant. Ct. Leicester. Aug. 12.
GOLDSELLER, JULIUS, Manchester, stockbroker. Ct. Manchester. Aug. 10.
GRAY, ALFRED, Bolton, grocer.
Ct. Bolton. Aug. 9.
KITTLE, AMBROSE WILLIAM, Battersea, greengrocer.
LENG, DOUGLAS HARRY, Goole, gentlemen's outfitter.
LEAT, MARY, Exeter, haulier. Ct. Exeter. Aug. 11.
MASON, WILLIAM MICHAEL, Sheffield, book-keeper. Ct. Sheffield. Aug. 12.
OLIVER, FREDERICK CHARLES LEWIS, Hastings, greengrocer. Ct. Hastings.
RENSHAW, WILLIAM KENNEDY, Mansfield, yeast dealer. Ct. Nottingham. Aug. 11.
ROWE, WILLIAM EDWARD, Leiston, blacksmith. Ct. Ipswich. Aug. 12. SMITH, GORDON, and SMITH, FREDERICK HERBERT, Epsom, builders. Ct. Croydon. Aug. 11.
SIMPSON, EDWARD, Newmarket, staticner's assistant. Ct. Cambridge.
SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM LEWIS (trading as Shakespeare, Belt, and Co.),
BROWN, EDWARD GEORGE, Lower Edmonton, builder. Ct. Edmonton.
BAKER, JOHN (trading as Baker and Son), Clacton-on-Sea, wholesale
CUTTING, THOMAS, Bath, cab proprietor. Ct. Bath. Aug. 8.
EYLES, GEORGE, Clapham, builder. Ct. Wandsworth.
GARTNER, WILLIAM, Exeter, ladies' tailor. Ct. Exeter. Aug. 8.
KIRKBRIDE, JONATHAN GEORGE, and LOFTUS, JOSEPH, Carlisle, hatters. Ct.
LASEK, ALFRED (trading as A. Lasek and Co.), Serutton-st, tapestry warehouseman. Ct. High Court. Aug. 9.
LAWRY, JOHN JENKIN, Madron, carpenter. Ct. Truro. Aug. 9.
PESKETT, GEORGE HARRY, Chichester, tailor. Ct. Brighton. Aug. 9.
TINLINE, JOHN DOUGLAS MADDEN, Teignmouth, gentleman. Ct. Exeter.
VIVIAN, MARGARET CORDELIA, Maitland Park-rd, spinster. Ct. High Court.
HEASMAN, WILLIAM, late Dock-st, London Docks, tin-box maker. 'H' Court. Aug, 11.
HCRSMAN, WILLIAM JAMES, and HORSMAN, HENRY JOHN (described in the
HIGGINS, CLARENCE JOHN, Hanwood, butcher. Ct. Shrewsbury. Aug. 10.
JOHNSON, JAMES PEACOCK, Darlington, builder. Ct. Stockton-on-Tees.
KEMPE, LEOPOLD HEINRICH (trading as L. H. Kempe and Co.), Copthall-
LEESON, JOHN GREGORY, Whitchurch, cabinet maker.
Ct. Nantwich and
LUNDY, ALBERT JAMES, Great Grimsby, watchmaker. Ct. Great Grimsby.
LEAT, MARY, Exeter, haulier. Ct. Exeter. Aug. 11.
Mcb FCHNIE. ARCHIBALD EDWARD, Colville-ter, Bayswater, merchant. Ct.
MASON. WILLIAM MICHAEL, Sheffield, book-keeper. Ct. Sheffield. Aug. 12. NORMAN, ROBERT EDWARD PIGOTT, Mornington-av.mansions, Kensington. Ct. High Court. Aug. 10.
OLIVER, FREDERICK CHARLES LEWIS, Hastings, greengrocer. Ct. Hastings. Aug. 10.
RENSHAW, WILLIAM KENNEDY, Mansfield, yeast dealer. Ct. Nottingham. Aug 11.
ROWE, WILLIAM EDWARD, Leiston, blacksmith. Ct. Ipswich. Aug. 12. ROBINS, THOMAS, Huddersfield, schoolmaster. Ct. Huddersfield. Aug. 11, RANDELL, JACK G., Southwater, gentleman. Ct. Brighton. Aug. 10. RICHARDSON, EDWIN JOSEPH, Brook-st, Grosvenor-sq, dentist. Ct. High Court. Aug. 11.
SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM LEWIS (trading as Shakespeare, Belt, and Co.), Sheffield, pattern maker. Ct. Sheffield. Aug. 10.
SIMPSON, EDWARD, Newmarket, stationer's assistant. Ct. Cambridge. Aug. 12.
TAYLOR, ROBERT FENN, Soham, coachbuilder. Ct. Cambridge. Aug. 11. TAYLOR, JOHN FREDERICK WILLIAM BLAKE (described in the receiving order as John W. Taylor), late London-wall, shipper. Ct. High Court, Aug. 11.
VICKERS, FREDERICK (trading as Frederick Vickers and Co.), Manchester, electrical engineer. Ct. Manchester. Aug. 11. WORTHINGTON, RALPH (late trading as M. C. Worthington), Newcastleupon-Tyne, late grocer. Ct. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Aug. 11. Amended notice substituted for that published in Gazette, Aug. 8. NORTON, JOSEPH, late Grainsby, fish merchants' manager. Ct. Great Grimsby. Aug. 3.
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
BAYLY-LOW.-On the 8th inst., at Holy Trinity Church, Sloane-st,
ABERCROMBIE.-On the 7th inst., at Sidlesham. Chichester, George
ESTABLISHED IN 1890.
To Readers and Correspondents.
All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected.
All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent delay, be addressed to the "EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES,' Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully considered by the Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, provided that a stamped addressed wrapper is inclosed for that purpose.
The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for) shall belong to the proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form they may think desirable. Apart from any express agreement that may be made, contributions are only received and considered on these conditions, Advertisements, orders for papers, &c., should be kept distinct, and addressed to the Publisher, Mr. HORACE Cox, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream'sbuildings, E.C.
TO SUBSCRIBERS.-PREPAYMENT TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION.
For One Year ..................£2 14 0 For One Year...........................£2 2 0 For Half-Year....................................................... 0 For Half-Year..................................................... 1 7 1 1 Foreign,
0 0 For One Year..........................£2 4 4 1 10 0 For Half-Year..
For One Year...............
LAW TIMES in half calf, office pattern................................................................................... 59. 6d.
LAW TIMES REPORTS, ditto, ditto, with Statutes at end............ 59. 6d. Parcels of Volumes for binding should be sent to the Publisher, LAW TIMES Ofcə, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.O.
TO ADVERTISERS.-SCALE OF CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines of 30 words or less £ 8. d. One page................................................................ 10 0 0 than 30 words in body type 3 6 Half page............................................................... 5 0 0 Each additional line... 6 One Column 3 10 0 Advertisements ordered for a series of three insertions are charged 10 per cent, under scale, and for six or more insertions 20 per cent. under. Paragraph Advertisements 18. per line, minimum 58. No series discount. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office, should remit 6d, additional to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Advertisements. Advertisements must reach the office not later than five o'clock on Thursday afternoon/ and must be accompanied by a remittance, Post-Office Orders payable to HORACE COX.
Vol. CXXXI.-No. 3569.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURF COURT OF APPEAL.
Re CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY; FOX v. THE COMPANY. Company Debenture-holder-Default of company-Sale of undertaking... 893 TURNER v. TURNER.-Administration -Legatee-Debtor to estate-Setoff-Partnership debt WRIGHT. DEE ESTATES LIMITED.Solicitor-Costs-Lien-Debenture trust deed-Solicitor of trustee...... 903 Re A DEBTOR (No. 68 of 1911).Bankruptcy-Contingent liabilityProvable debt-Order for new trial 905 HOWARTH v. SIR B SAMUELSON AND Co. Employer and workman Accident Compensation - Award by committee
PARLIAMENTARY SUMMARY.- Topics 385 COUNTY COURTS.-Sittings of the Courts-Recent Decision: Dack v.
Took GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.-The Right Hon. Sir Samuel Walker, Bart., Lord Chancellor of Ireland-The Law of the Air-Habitual Drunkenness Heirs-at-Law and Next of Kin-Appointments under the Joint Stock Winding-up Acts-Creditors under Estates in Chancery-Creditors under 22 & 28 Vict. c. 85 LAW SOCIETIES.-The Law Socie'y: Annual Provincial Meeting, Programme of Arrangements CORRESPONDENCE
NOTES AND QUERIES
PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
Hereford His Honour Judge Willis-Mr. James Warnes Howlett 393 THE GAZETTES...... 393 BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS 394
The Law and the Lawyers.
In the Vacation Court on Wednesday, the decrees nisi which had been pronounced in fifteen cases were made absolute. Only two notices of motion were set down for the day, the remainder of the list being made up of cases which had been adjourned. The majority of these were either settled or further adjourned, and there was again nothing either of legal or public importance to record.
RECENTLY the deaths have occurred of three notable lawyers. Last week we had to announce the decease of Sir SAMUEL WALKER, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on the 13th inst, and this was followed on Friday last week by the death of Lord JAMES OF HEREFORD, and of His Honour Judge WILLIS on Tuesday last. For some time past Lord JAMES had practically retired from all political and judicial duties, and at the time of his death was in his eighty-third year. Judge WILLIS was but seventy-six years of age, and, until the beginning of the illness which has resulted in his death, showed much of the vigour that has characterised his life. In him the Profession will lose a member "of the highest and most attractive character"-to quote the Times-and one of undoubted popularity.
SINCE We went to press last week the country has suffered the inconvenience and dislocation necessarily attendant upon the national railway strike, which lasted for some forty-eight hours. Thanks to the loyalty of a very large number of the railway employés and the prompt action of the Government, the threatened paralysis did not take place, but the heavy loss to the general community is undeniable. Within the last few weeks the general unrest that exists among the workers at large has been brought home sharply to the public, and, Second Sheet.
provided the settlements which have been arrived at hold good and we are not now again thrown into the vortex of industrial revolt, steps should be taken as soon as possible to prevent a recurrence of the events of this month.
WE are far from saying that no reason exists for the present unrest in the ranks of labour. The men have grievances, especially in the lower grades, but they are such as might and could speedily be settled by impartial and competent persons, whose sole desire would be to see that substantial justice was done to all parties. To our mind, many of the present difficulties have arisen from the refusal of direct negotiation. We quite agree that the unions do not represent the whole, or nearly the whole, of the working classes, and the interests and rights of non-unionists should be rigidly guarded in all discussions and negotiations, at which that body of workers should be represented. At the same time, ignoring the unions, who clearly represent a very large body of men, can do no possible good, and merely gives rise to friction and discontent.
THE Composition of the commission of inquiry should give satisfaction to all, and we have little doubt that they will find the means of making more workable the railway conciliation scheme of 1907, which naturally has been in the nature of an experiment and, like all experiments, must give rise to failures and disclose defects. No good whatever can arise from mutual recriminations, and it is to be hoped that in the immediate future the ready means will be found for dealing justly and expeditiously with all industrial disputes. That the country at large will not stand a repetition of recent events is clear, and a further continuance of strikes and their attendant disorders will arouse such feelings among decent citizens that steps will be resorted to totally foreign to the methods hitherto adopted.
THE Government is to be congratulated upon the firm stand made to protect the public, while the police and the army exercised their duties with that loyalty and restraint they have always shown. In these industrial disputes the number of actual strikers who are guilty of acts of violence is, as a rule, infinitesimal; but, unfortunately, the criminal and the hooligan classes, always opposed to all forms of law and order, are attracted by any large dislocation of ordinary life, and the opportunity is taken to indulge in rioting and disorder, but those guilty of such conduct must be treated with a heavy hand. Where necessary, both for dealing with actual violence and for preventing such violence, the employment of the military is absolutely justified. Where force is employed to deal with force, half measures are worse than useless; and if, unhappily, any recrudescence occurs of the recent disorders, we hope that the Government will take the strongest possible steps to protect the country at large, and in this they will have the support of every decent-minded person.
THE railway crisis, which has demonstrated that the President of the Board of Trade is in reality the Board of Tradesince there was not in circumstances of the most critical character any meeting of the Board of Trade nor any suggestion that the Board of Trade should meet has also exposed by an object lesson yet another of the many fictions in the working as compared with the theory of the constitution of the great departments of State. In 1786 an Order in Council was passed creating the Committee of Council for Trade-an offshoot of the Privy Council-which has undergone a complete severance from that body, and has long ceased to be known in popular language as a Committee of Council at all, but is styled simply the Board of Trade. From the minute-books for the years 1786 to 1797 it appears that members of the committee, varying from one to seven
or eight, actually attended, the president of the board always being one and sometimes acting alone. This mode of doing business, however, gradually became a fiction, and now the Board of Trade has practically ceased to exist as a deliberative body. It is formally constituted by Order in Council at the commencement of each reign as a committee consisting of a president and certain ex officio members, including the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the principal Secretaries of State, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and, of all other functionaries, the Archbishop of Canterbury; but, considered as an executive department of State, the Board of Trade now means nothing more, as is evident by the method in which the recent railway crisis has been met, than the President and his official staff, with whose assistance he transacts all the business of the office: (see Traill's Central Government, pp. 125-127).
THE admission-correctly described as a most unusual circumstance of Mr. AsKWITH, the Comptroller-General of the Commercial, Labour, and Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, and Sir H. LLEWELLYN SMITH, likewise an official of the Board of Trade, to a Cabinet Council in relation to the railway crisis will recall to recollection Mr. GLADSTONE'S description of a Cabinet, in which he refers to the presence at Cabinet Councils of persons not members of the Cabinet when expert information and advice is needed. "The Cabinet," he writes, " sits in the closest secrecy. There is no record of its proceedings, nor is there anyone to hear there, except upon the very rare occasions when some important functionary, for the most part military or legal, is introduced pro hac vice for the purpose of giving it necessary information." There are several recent instances of the introduction to Cabinet Councils of military and naval commanders and of law officers of the Crown, and the admission of Board of Trade officials was by analogy consonant with practice in cases of exceptional difficulty and gravity.
THE LAW RELATING TO STRIKES AND
COMBINATIONS of persons concerned in one trade were, under the style of guilds, perfectly legal in the Middle Ages, but combinations of labourers not connected with guilds were early made illegal, and the duty to labour and the settlement of the price of labour were made matters of public concern. There was much legislation from about 1349 (Statute of Labourers, 23 Edw. 3) onwards, to punish the organisation of labourers by means of combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade. Various statutes were directed against combinations by merchants to disturb the markets or prices, and against combinations by masons and carpenters, by victuallers to raise prices, and by labourers to raise wages or alter hours. Throughout the seventeenth century the question most frequently agitated was whether, as between the mere combination for criminal acts on the one hand and the execution of the proposed acts on the other hand, the gist of the crime lay in such a combination or included the execution of the acts proposed. This was material for determining how far the proposed acts must be fully and correctly set out in the indictment; how far the combination must be proved to have been carried towards execution; and whether a court which would not have had jurisdiction to punish the acts themselves might punish the combination, and whether, in cases in which the proposed acts were prohibited by statute, the offence must be laid to be contra forman statuti. In the course of the seventeenth century it became settled law that as between the combination to do the criminal acts and the acts themselves, the gist was in the agreement or combination, for all the above-mentioned purposes, and, that even where the proposed acts were statutory offences, the conspiracy to do them might be laid and punished as a substantive crime at common law; and it became the current phrase that the conspiracy was the "gist of the indictment."
The most prominent characteristic of the law of criminal combinations in the nineteenth century was its extended application to combinations of workmen. Acts had in former times been passed to prohibit combinations of workmen for altering wages or hours (2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 15), and during the eighteenth century several Acts had prohibited combinations for controlling masters in particular trades. In 1799 the Act of 39 Geo. 3, c. 81, by sect. 1 provided that all agreements by workmen of any kind for altering hours or lessening quantity of work, or for hindering masters from employing such persons as they should please, or for controlling or in any way
affecting a master in the conduct or management of his business, should be "and the same are hereby declared to be illegal, null, and void" to all intents; and by subsequent sections it provided that workmen entering into such agreements, or subscribing or collecting money, or attending meetings for the purposes of such agreements, or bribing, persuading, or influencing other workmen not to enter into hirings, or to quit their hirings, or refusing to work with any other workman, &c., should be subject to imprisonment. In the following year this Act was repealed and replaced by 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 106, which contained provisions substantially similar to those of the Act of 1799, but which required in case of some of the offences that the acts must be wilfully and maliciously done. In 1825 the Act of 5 Geo. 4, c. 95, repealed all the then existing Acts relating to combinations of workmen, and provided that workmen should not by reason of combinations as to hours, wages, or conditions of labour, or for inducing others to refuse work or to depart from work, or for regulating the mode of carrying on any manufacture, trade, or business or the management thereof," be liable to any criminal proceeding or punishment for conspiracy or otherwise under the statute or common law. By another section it extended a similar immunity to combinations of mastere. On the other hand, it enacted a penalty of two months' imprisonment for violence, threats, intimidation, and malicious mischief. It was repealed after a year's trial, and was replaced by 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, which continued in force until 1871. This Act again repealed the older statutes, but without mention of the common law. It provided summary penalties for the use of violence, threats, intimidation, molestation, or obstruction by any person for the purpose of forcing a master to alter his mode of business, or a workman to refuse or leave work, or of forcing any person to belong or subscribe or to conform to the rules of any club or association. It did not expressly penalise any combination or conspiracy, and it exempted from all liability to punishment the mere meeting of masters and workmen for settling the conditions as to wages and hours on which the persons present at the meeting would consent to employ or serve. In 1859 an amending Act was passed (22 Vict. c. 34) for declaring that agreements by workmen or others as to the wages or hours of labour, whether of the persons present at the meeting or of other workmen, and peaceable and reasonable persuasions by workmen or others to abstain from work in order to secure such wages or hours, ehould not be deemed to be molestations or obstructions within the meaning of the Act of 1825, but with a proviso that this enactment should not authorise breach of contract by workmen or persuasion of workmen to break their contracte. This Act was also repealed in 1871. These statutes were soon enforced, as their predecessors had been enforced, not merely by the summary proceedings which they prescribed, but also by the more stringent means of indictments for combinations to infringe their provisions.
The status, rights, and liabilities of trade unions are now regulated by the Trade Union Acts 1871 and 1876 and the Trade Disputes Act 1906, and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. The object of the Acts is to legalise combinatious for trade purposes and acts in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes. The bodies to which the Acts apply are any combination, whether temporary or permanent, for regulating the relations been workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, whether such combination would, or would not, prior to the Act of 1871, have been deemed to have been an unlawful combination by reason of some one or more of its purposes being in restraint of trade" (Act of 1876, c. 22, s. 16). This definition, it will be seen, includes combinations between employers as well as between workmen, and is wide enough to include combinations of manufacturers to keep up the prices of their wares.
The policy of English law, as at present disclosed by legislation or interpreted by the judges, is said to lean against the imposition of any fetters on any combination or association which is not accom. panied by violence or fraud or other like acts, nor aimed without justification or excuse at the injury of others or their trades-e.g., by inducing servants or customers to break, or not to make contracts with them. The extent to which these combinations give rise to civil remedies came before the House of Lords in Quinn v. Leathem (85 L.T. Rep. 289; (1901) A. C. 495), and in that case it was laid down that a combination of two or more, without justification or excuse, to injure a man in his trade by inducing his customers or servants to break their contracts with him, or not to deal with him, or not to continue in his employment, is actionable if it results in civil damage to him, and that the cause of action lies, not in the malicious intention of the persons combining, but in the violation of the legal rights of the injured person by interfering, without sufficient justification, with contractual relations lawfully entered into.
The effect of Quinn v.Leathem (sup.) is to a great extent taken away by seot. 1 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 47), which enacts that “any act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless that act, if done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable. ." and by sect. 3 of the same Act, which provides that "an act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or that it is an interference with the trade, business, or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills."
A combination for trade purposes formed by traders or workmen in their own interests is not rendered unlawful merely by the fact that it
is an undertaking in concert by persons having a common interest, if the concert does not involve the doing of any act which would not be unlawful if done by a single person in his own sole interest. In other words, persons injured civilly by a combination of other persons cannot recover damage merely on the ground of a conspiracy or combination against them, but must show a legal wrong done them, which would be actionable apart from the combination.
By sect. 4 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act 1906, "an action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union, in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any court." This does not affect the liability of trustees of a trade union to be sued in the events provided by est. 9 of the Trade Union Act 1871, except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contemplatlon or furtherance of a trade dispute: (sect. 4 (2). Sect. 4 of the Act of 1906 was intended to override, as regards the quasi-corporate liability of trade unions and their funds for tort or for procuring breach of contract, the decisions in Taff Vale Railway Company v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (85 L. T. Rep. 147; (1901) A. C. 426), Quinn v. Leathem (85 L. T. Rep. 289; (1901) A. C. 495), Giblan v. Amalgamated Labourers' Union (89 L. T. Rep. 386; (1903) 2 K. B. 600), Read v. Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons (87 L. T. Rep. 493; (1902) 2 K. B. 732), and South Wales Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Company (92 L. T. Rep. 710; (1905) A. C. 239).
Sect. 9 of the Trade Union Act 1871 enacts that "The trustees of any trade union registered under the Act, or any other officer of such trade union who may be authorised so to do by the rules thereof, are hereby empowered to bring or defend, or cause to be brought or defended, any action, suit, prosecution, or complaint in any court of law or equity, touching or concerning the property, right, or claim to property of the trade union; and shall and may, in all cases concerning the real or personal property of such trade union, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, in any court of law or equity in their proper names, without other description than the title of their office; and no such action, suit, prosecution, or complaint shall be discontinued or shall abate by the death or removal from office of such persons or any of them, but the same shall and may be proceeded in by their successor or successors as if such death, resignation, or removal had not taken place; and such successors shall pay or receive the like costs as if the action, suit, prosecution, or complaint had been commenced in their names for the benefit of or to be reimbursed from the funds of such trade union, and the summons to be issued to such trustee or other officer may be served by leaving the same at the registered office of the trade union."
Combination by trade unions is now perfectly lawful, unless it is to do any act which would be criminal in a single person. Sect. 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 (38 & 39 Viot. c. 86) provides that an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be indictable as a conspiracy if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime. Nothing in this section shall affect the law relating to riot, unlawful assembly, breach of the peace, or sedition, or any offence against the State or Sovereign. Where a person is convicted of any such agreement or combination as aforesaid to do or procure to be done an act which is punishable only on summary conviction, and is sentenced to imprisonment, the imprisonment shall not exceed three months, or such longer time, if any, as may have been prescribed by the statute for the punishment of the said act when committed by one person. But sect. 1 of the Act of 1906, as we have seen, provides that an act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the act, if done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable.
Sect. 4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 provides that where a person employed by a municipal authority, or by any company or contractor upon whom is imposed by Act of Parliament the duty, or who have otherwise assumed the duty of supplying any city, borough, town, or place with gas or water, wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service with that authority or company or contractor, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to deprive the inhabitants of that city or place wholly or to a great extent of their supply of gas or water, he shall on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding £20, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour. Every such municipal authority, company, or contractor shall cause to be posted up at the gasworks or waterworks, as the case may be, a printed copy of this section in some conspicuous place where the same may be conveniently read by the persons employed, and as often as such copy becomes defaced, obliterated, or destroyed, shall canse it to be renewed with all reasonable dispatch. Sect. 5 of the same Act provides that where any person wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service or of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to endanger human life, or cause serious bodily injury, or to expose valuable property, whether real or personal, to destruction or serious injury, he shall on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding £20, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard