[592]. Statement rewritten. Only so much of the case is given as relates to a single point.
[593]. Statement rewritten. Arguments omitted. Some of the opinions are entirely omitted, and none are given in full.
[594]. ... “The litigants are members of two rival associations of workingmen, registered under the Trade Unions Act of 1871.”... Lord Watson, [1898] A. C., p. 90. “It is not a dispute between employers and employed,—between capital and labor,—but rather one between the members of one trade union and of another trade union.”... Lord Ashbourne, ibid. p. 109. “Each party had the financial support of their union.” Lord Macnaghten, p. 147.
[595]. As to the terms of the ironworkers’ employment, see Lord Watson, pp. 90, 99, and Lord Herschell, p. 130.
[596]. See Lord Macnaghten, p. 146.
[597]. It was held, both by Kennedy, J., and by the Court of Appeal, that Jackson and Knight were not liable. Upon this branch of the case there was no appeal to the House of Lords.
[598]. See Lord Macnaghten, p. 148.
[599]. The statement here given is compiled from extracts recited in the opinions of Lord Shand, p. 162, Lord Halsbury, p. 82, and Lord Macnaghten, p. 149.
[600]. See Veeder, Advisory Opinions of the Judges in England, 13 Harv. Law Rev. 358.
[601]. ... “There is no ground for even a suggestion that the defendant’s acts were due to competition in trade or employment. There could be no competition between the two sets of men in the circumstances under which they were then working, the one at wood, the other at iron only; and even if they were competing, the plaintiffs were working well within their right.” Hawkins, J., p. 23. “Now, although according to the principles of the Mogul Case the action of Allen might have been justified on the principles of trade competition, if it had been confined to the time when the respondents were doing ironwork, and were therefore acting in competition with the boilermakers, it appears to me that as soon as he overstepped those limits, and induced their employers to dismiss them by way of punishment, his action was without just cause or excuse, and, consequently, malicious within the legal meaning of that word.” Cave, J., p. 37. “This action was not an effort, by competition, to enable the boilermakers to get the work instead, but to punish the plaintiffs by causing the employment of other shipwrights in their room.” Lord Ashbourne, p. 111.