Editorial Department Nashville Railway Co., 48 Southwestern Reporter 429, 88 Am. St. Rep. 298; Ray mond т'. Russell ri al., 9 New England Re porter 544, 58 Am. Rep. 137; McDonald v. Til. Central R. R., 187 Ill. 529, 58 New Eng land Reporter 463; Wabash R. R. Co. v. Hannahan et al. (С. C.) 121 Federal Re porter 563. BOYCOTT. (ILLEGALITY — RIGHTS OF LABOR UNIONS.) NEW JERSEY COURT OF CHANCERY.
The case of Martin v. McFall, 55 At lantic Reporter 465, presents a noteworthy contrast to the case of Boyer v. West ern Union Telegraph Co., 124 Federal Reporter 246, elsewhere reviewed. In the Federal case blacklisting was held legal— in the present case boycotting is held illegal. Since in each instance the essence of the wrong is the interference by one party with the attempt of the other to contract with third persons, it would seem difficult to reconcile the decisions. In the present case the vice-chancellor defines what labor unions may and may not do: Labor unions may lawfully combine and form unions; they may strike; but they may not prevent others from working, or render it either difficult or uncomfortable for them to work; and they may not employ the boycott. The rather curious remark is added that if the defendants did not intend to do the things forbidden by the restraining order then the order would do them no harm. CARRIKRS. (UNJUST DISCRIMINATION—PASS— IN JURY то PASSENGER—RIGHT OK RECOVERY.) NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT.
In McNeill v. Durham & C. R. Co., 44 Southeastern Reporter 34, the carry ing of a newspaper editor on a pass, given in consideration of advertising, is held to amount to unjust discrimination within the inhibition of Laws 1891, p. 277, c. 320, Sec tions 4 and 25, punishing unjust discrimina tion in passenger rates by a fine not exceed ing $5,000. This is because the value of the advertising is not shown to be exactly equal
to the value of the pass, and because it amounted to a sale to the editor of his tran sportation on credit and not for cash. In discussing the public policy which was voiced in the act, the court refers to the opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in State v. Railway Co., 122 N. C. 1052, 30 Southeastern Reporter 133, 41 L. R. A. 246, in which it was stated that the number of free passes issued in North Carolina in one year was over 100,000 and after deducting those permitted by the statute, over a quarter of a million of tran sportation was given away annually, mostly to the classes best able to pay, and which was preforce added to the fares of those who paid their way. Having determined that the editor's contract for transportation was ille gal, the court then holds that he could not recover for injuries arising from the com pany's negligence, during his passage. This is on the theory that he and the company are in parí delicio. The case is distinguished from those holding ineffectual, stipulations on the backs of free passes, exempting the car rier from liability for injuries sustained by the holder thereof. In those instances the contract for transportation was legal, while in this case it was not so. CARRIKRS. (PASSENGER'S REFUSAL то PAY EXTRA FARE—FORCIBLE EVICTION—ACTION FOR AS SAULT.) NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.
In Monnier v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 67 Northeast ern Reporter 569, the plaintiff recovered damages for an assault and battery by one of the defendant's conductors when the plaintiff was in one of the defendant's cars as a pas senger. Plaintiff had gone to the defendant's station but found the ticket office, which had been open for an hour before the de parture of the train, closed for five to ten minutes before the train pulled out and he was compelled to go aboard without a ticket. The price of the ticket plaintiff intended to purchase was fifteen cents but under the rules of the company he could be compelled to pay nineteen cents
