PARTIE DOCUMENTAIRE

a right in his own interest to peaceably persuade another workman or a body of workmen to legally terminate their contracts of employaient and to cease work, but he bas no right, by coercion or intimidation, to persuade workmen not to work or to cease working.

The remaining question is, whether the conduct of défendants, as established by the évidence in this case, infringes the plaintiffs rights so as to give him a cause of action in the civil courts of this Province ? The object of the défendants was the improvement of the position of the members of the Union, which was a lawful object, and the question to be decîded hère is, whether or not, in the pursuit of that lawful object, they resorted to practices prohibited by the civil law or the criminal law, or by both ? I hâve already referred to plaintiffs right to carry on his business without interférence or annoyances which would cause him damage and give him a right of action under 1053 of the Civil Code. Section 501 of the Criminal Code makes it unlawful, among other things, to wrongfully and without lawful authority, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing anything which he has a lawful right to do, or to do anything from which he has a lawfull right to abstain, to (a) use violence to such other person; (6)intimidate such other person by threats of using violence to him; (c)persistently follow such other person about from place to place; (d)with one or more other persons follow such other person in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road; (e)beset or watch the house or other place where such person résides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be. The Impérial Conspiracy & Protection of Property Act, 1875, section 7, from which the above section is substantially reproduced, contained a proviso not found in the Criminal Code, that attending merely to obtain or communicate information shall not be deemed watching or besetting. It is significant that this proviso, in favour of obtaining and communicating information which was introduced in Canada in 1876 by 39 Vie, ch, sec. 2, and R.S.C. 1886, ch. 173, sec. 12, was omitted from the Criminal Code, and it seems to indicate the intention of Parliament by its omission to be that attending for the purpose of obtaining and communicating information would not deprive watching and besetting of its wrongful character"

Voici les principales parties du jugement :

"considering plaintiff has for some years carried on business in the City of Montréal as a manufacturer of ladies' garments emptoying about fifty workers and running his business as an open shop;

64 l'action française

"CoNSiDÈiiiNG fchat fche défendants organized a strike in the garaient industry in Montréal and called out ail workers, including ail working for the plaintiff, on 9th November 1921, and organized a System of picketing plaintiff's factory and the homes of some of his workers for the purpose of compelling plaintiff to submit to défendants' demands;

considering that the picketing carried on by défendants was accompanied by threats, abusive and offensive language, assaults and Personal violence, not for the purpose of peaceable persuasion but for the purpose of compelling plaintiff, by coercion and intimidation, to submit to the demands of the defenfants and to operate his manufacturing establishment as a union shop, in accordance with the wishes and desires of the défendants;

"considering that the picketing carried on by défendants was illégal, wrongful and without justification andhas caused plaintiff loss, damage and in jury in his business;

"considering that the only effective remedy to protect plaintiff is to enjoin and restrain the défendants from the continuation or répétition of the illégal acts and conduct complained of, as a judgment foidamages would not afford an adéquate and effective remedy against the great and irréparable injury to which hc is cxposed and with which he is threatened;

"doth maintain plaintiff's action and doth déclare the Intérim Order of Injunction issued herein, on 16th November 1921, absolute; and doth enjoin the défendants, International Ladies Garment Worker Union, S. Goldberg and Joseph Schubert, their officiers, members, agents and représentatives from molesting or in any way inteifering with plaintiff, his servants or employées, or prospective employées, and from in any way picketing in front of or in the neighbourhood of plaintiff's place of business at No. 24 McGill Collège Avenue, in the City of Montréal, or from besetting or watching plaintiff's place of business, or the résidence or résidences of plaintiff's employées, agents and représentatives, or from persistently following plaintiff's employées with a view of intimidating the latter or any of them from cntering or returning to plaintiff's employ; the whole with costs against said défendants, resorving to plaintiff his right to take any further action and conclusions that he may be advised to take by reason of the prernises."

MOT D'ORDRE l'action française

- ttA , : '—T FÉVRIER içi2 itj

de l'Action française ^ *