ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

conspiracy in restraint of trade, because the defendants used no violence, threats, fraud, or coercion, and had no intention of injuring the plaintiff's trade except in so far as such injury was incidental to the improvement of their own.

ARTICLE 441.

WHAT ACTS DONE IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE ARE NOT

UNLAWFUL.

1The purposes of a trade union are not, by reason merely that they are in restraint of trade, unlawful within the meaning of Article 440.

2 No act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen is unlawful within the meaning of Article 440, unless a person doing it would be punishable for it on indictment, or liable to be imprisoned (either absolutely or at the discretion of the Court as an alternative for some other punishment) on summary conviction.

ARTICLE 442.

CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, MISDEMEANORS.

3 Every conspiracy in restraint of trade is a misdemeanor, but no person convicted of a conspiracy to do, or procure to be done, in restraint of trade an act punishable only on summary conviction can be sentenced to imprisonment for more than 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.

ARTICLE 443.

CRIMINAL BREACHES OF CONTRACT OF SERVICE-INTIMIDATION AND PICKETING.

Every person commits a misdemeanor, and is liable upon

1 34 & 35 Vict. c. 31, s. 2.

2 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, s. 3. The words of the earlier part of the section are "punishable as a crime." "Crime" is defined at the end of the section as in the text.

3 Ibid. last paragraph.

4 Ibid. s. 5.

conviction thereof to be fined £20 or to imprisonment for three months with hard labour,

(a.) 1 who wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service or of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequence 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; or

(b.) 2 who being 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, or any part thereof, 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, alone or in combination with others, will be to deprive the inhabitants of that city, borough, town, place or part, wholly or to a great extent of their supply of gas or water; or

(c.) 3 who being a master legally liable to provide for his servant or apprentice necessary food, clothing, medical aid, or lodging, wilfully and without lawful excuse neglects to provide the same, whereby the health of the servant or apprentice is or is likely to be seriously or permanently injured; or

4

(d.) who with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing wrongfully and without legal authority,

(i.) uses violence to or 5 intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property; or

[blocks in formation]

5 The meaning of the word intimidates in this section has been much discussed, but not authoritatively defined. 34 & 35 Vict. c. 32, s. 1, subs. (2) limited the intimidation contemplated by that sub-section to "such intimidation as would justify a magistrate in binding over the

(ii) persistently follows such other person about from place to place; or

(iii.) hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or

(iv.) watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place; or

(v.) follows such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road.

Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place in order merely to obtain or communicate information is not a watching or besetting within (iv.)

1 Cases under this Article may be determined by a Court of summary jurisdiction, or if the accused objects to being tried for such offence by such a Court, the Court of summary jurisdiction [must 2] deal with the case in all respects as if the offender were charged with an indictable offence, and the offence may be prosecuted on indictment accordingly.

intimidator to keep the peace-in other words, to such intimidation as implies a threat of personal violence" (Gibson v. Lawson, 1891, 2 Q. B. at p. 559), but this Act is repealed by 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, which contains no such express limitation. It was held by Mr. Justice Cave in the unreported case of R. v. McKeevit, tried at the Liverpool Assizes, December 1891, though it has never been more authoritatively decided, that such a limitation of the meaning of the word must be the implicit intention of the later Act. In Curran v. Treleaven (1891, 2 Q. B., at p. 560), and the cases decided at the same time, it was held in substance that a declaration by officials of a trade-union that if their wishes were not complied with they would call out the union workmen, followed by such calling out, was not intimidation of the persons whose action it was intended to influence. See R. v. Druitt, 1867, 10 Cox, C. C. 592, and Connor v. Kent (with which are reported Gibson v. Lawson, and Curran v. Treleaven), 1891, 2 Q. B. 545.

138 & 39 Vict. c. 86, s. 9.

2 "may," but apparently it means "must."

1

ARTICLE 444.

THIRD OFFENCES AGAINST THE TRUCK ACTS.

Any person is guilty of a misdemeanor, and is liable to a fine not exceeding £100, who being an employer of any 2 workman, by himself or by the agency of any other person or persons, directly or indirectly enters into any contract, or makes any payment declared illegal by the Truck Acts, after having been twice convicted of the same offence.

1 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 37, s. 9. A complete account of the offences referred to in this Article will be found in Oke's Magisterial Synopsis at pp. 424-429; as third offences are very rare, it has not been thought worth while to set them out further above. The Truck Amendment Act 1887, 50 & 51 Vict. c. 46, is by sect. 1 to be read as one with the Truck Act 1831. Third offences are now punishable summarily as well as on indictment, 50 & 51 Vict. c. 46, ss. 11, 13.

2 The Act of 1831 originally applied only to certain artificers as therein defined; it extends to all workmen as defined in the Employers and Workmen's Act 1875; see Oke's Synopsis, p. 971; 50 & 51 Vict. c. 46, ss. 2 and 1.

APPENDIX OF NOTES

NOTE I.

(TO ARTICLE 31.)

HARDLY any legal doctrine is less satisfactory than the one embodied in this Article. The rule has been too long settled to be disputed; but on examining the authorities in their historical order, it appears to me to have originated, like some other doctrines, in the anxiety of judges to devise means by which the excessive severity of the old criminal law might be evaded.

:

The doctrine as it now stands is uncertain in its extent and irrational as far as it goes. It is, besides, rendered nearly unmeaning by the rule that the presumption is liable to be rebutted by circumstances. The first authority on the subject is Bracton, in whose time the more recent doctrine appears to have been unknown. He says "Uxor vero furi desponsata, non tenebitur ex furto viri, quia virum accusare non debet nec detegere furtum suum nec feloniam, cum ipsa sui potestatem non habeat, sed vir. Consentire tamen non debet feloniæ viri sui nec coadjutrix esse, sed nequitiam et feloniam viri impedire debet quantum potest. In certis vero casibus de furto tenebitur, si furtum inveniatur sub clavibus uxoris, quas quidem claves habere debet uxor sub custodiâ et curâ suâ. Claves videlicet dispensæ suæ, archæ suæ, et scrinii sui et si aliquando furtum sub clavibus istis inveniatur, uxor cum viro culpabilis erit. Sed quid si res furtiva in manu uxoris inveniatur, numquid tenebitur vir? Non ut videtur, nisi ei expresse consenserit, vel cum rem ei warrantizaverit cum ipsum vocaverit ad warrantum, et tunc consensisse præsumitur nisi expresse dissentiat, vel nisi de eo præsumatur quod fidelis sit eo quod societatem talis uxoris devitavit in quantum potuit. Item quid erit si uxor cum viro conjuncta fuerit, vel confessa quod viro

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »