A remarkable injunction was granted on Wednesday by the Vacation
Judge of th;,‘ High Court, Mr. Justice Coffins. It was sought by Messrs. Joseph Salmon and Son, and its object was "to restrain the defendants [Mr. Cater and others], their servants, agents, and others, from issuing or publishing a certain bill calling a public meeting." The bill was issued by the Camden and Kentish Town Early-Closing Association. The parts objected to by the plaintiff were,—(1), That the bill stated that at the meeting a resolution would be passed regretting that the plaintiffs were about to discontinue the Thursday 5 o'clock closing until next spring; (2), calling upon people to support the Associa- tion by not dealing with people who did not close early. It is stated by the St. James's Gazette that the plaintiff, a shop- keeper, joined the Early-Closing Association in his district, but afterwards determined to leave it, and that because of this action the other shopkeepers determined to organise a boycott of his shop. The Times' report is very meagre, and we expect that the case was not argued at length, which is to be regretted, as it would be very interesting and useful to have it clearly determined how far the English Common Law goes in dealing with organised "exclusive dealing." It is evident that any conspiracy to boycott and prevent custom is illegal ; but what is the exact state of the law as regards organised expres- sions of opinion intended to overawe and intimidate P The line between tyranny and the expression of a wholesome public opinion, is one very difficult to draw in the abstract.
Previous page
