consideration, because the penalty is a fine not exceeding £20, or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months. The words "valuable property " are not defined in the Act; any definition by the Courts will therefore be quoted as a precedent in any new case that may arise. It is possible to overstrain the words of this section unintentionally, by reason of the fact that the section applies only to contracts of service.

Neglect by Master.-Sect. 6 imposes a penalty for neglect by a master to provide necessary food, clothing, medical aid, or lodging, wilfully and without lawful excuse, for his servant or apprentice, whereby the health of either is or is likely to be seriously or permanently injured-the penalty is a sum not exceeding £20, or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months. By s. 11 the respective parties to the contract of service, their husbands or wives, were empowered to give evidence in all cases under sects. 4, 5 and 6 of this Act. The prisoner was in this case, as under the Employers and Workmen Act, also empowered to give evidence on oath.

Picketing, Watching, and Besetting.-The majority of prosecutions under this Act are instituted under sect. 7. It is commonly known as the "picketing clause." The Plymouth case was under this

section (sub-sect. 1), the recorder sentenced the men to a fine of £20, with the alternative of six weeks imprisonment; but the conviction was quashed on appeal. Curran v. Treleaven. (See p. 134.) The section sets forth certain acts which are unlawful, and the penalty if they are committed. In brief, the acts are as follows:-Uses violence to or intimidates a person, his wife or children, or injures such person's property; persistently follows such person about from place to place; hides tools, clothes, or other property, or deprives such person of, or hinders him in the use thereof; watches or besets the house or place where such person resides, works, carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place; or follows, with two or more, such person in a disorderly manner. Those are the prohibited acts, qualified by this object" 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." Lawful Picketing Defined.-There is a further qualification in what is termed the saving clause, thus :-" Attending at or near the 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, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section." The whole section is general in its character and

T.U.A.

66

3

application, and the mere fact that the prohibited act or acts were done in connection with a labour dispute ought not to aggravate the offence. It is important to remember that the word "compel " is used instead of "coerce," as in the repealed Act, and that the word "molest" is expunged. The Court may impose a fine in lieu of imprisonment; the extreme penalty is a fine of £20, or three months imprisonment with or without hard labour, but either may be less. In brief, the things really prohibited are violence, intimidation, or compulsion-force in some form, or threats of force, and depriving a man of the use of his tools or other property. Peaceful picketing is lawful within the limits prescribed by the Act.

Taff Vale Case-One of Picketing.-The case of the Taff Vale Railway Company v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants arose out of a dispute between the former and the latter, eventuating in a strike. In connection with that strike, the Great Western Railway Station at Cardiff, the works, and other places were picketed. The Railway Company thereupon applied for an injunction to restrain two officials of the Union, Messrs. Bell and Holmes, from watching and besetting the places referred to. The injunction was contested, but it was granted. The Union did not in this case instruct counsel to appeal, as it was personal to the men named in the summons. Then an injunction was applied

for against the Union. The summons taken out by the plaintiffs, in the Queen's Bench Division, and adjourned into Court, was heard before Mr. Justice Farwell, in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, sitting as Vacation Judge, on September 5th, 1900. “By the summons an injunction was asked for to restrain the defendants, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, Richard Bell and James Holmes, from watching or besetting, or causing to be watched or beset, the Great Western Railway Station at Cardiff or the works of the plaintiffs, or any of them, or the approaches thereto, or the place of residence, or any place where they may happen to be, of any workman employed by or proposing to work for the plaintiffs, for the purpose of persuading or otherwise preventing persons from working for the plaintiffs, or for any purpose except merely to obtain or communicate information, and from procuring any persons who may have or may enter into contracts with the plaintiffs to commit a breach of such contracts."

The terms of the summons are not important from a legal standpoint, as any terms pertinent to the case can be put in by the solicitor in whose hands it is. But the terms are nevertheless important as showing the object and intention of the plaintiffs, it being, in this instance, the prevention of picketing. In order to cover all possibilities the words "for the purpose of persuading or otherwise

7

preventing persons from working for the plaintiffs," were inserted in the summons. Naturally, this led to the conclusion that a blow was aimed at "peaceful picketing," and the Trade and Labour Unions were consequently up in arms when the injunction asked for was granted.

Union responsible for Acts of Members.-Though the summons set forth picketing as the offence against which the injunction was asked for, in reality the judgment of Mr. Justice Farwell did not deal with it except inferentially. The offence was assumed

that picketing was in some way an infraction of the law-else how could an injunction be granted? Under some of the terms in the summons, as, for example, preventing persons doing what they had a right to do, or procuring persons to break contracts, such acts, if committed, and were proven, would be an infraction of the law. But persuading a person to do a thing, or not to do a thing, would not be unlawful, unless the act itself was specifically unlawful. Unlawfulness was implied in the summons, and assumed apparently by the learned Judge. The judgment was wider. It was a decision that a Trade Union was in this particular instance responsible for the acts of the members, and that the acts in question were in themselves contrary to law. This was the essence of the judgment, and it was against that dictum that the defendants in the action appealed. It is essential that the two matters be