kind of competition are by no means clear. This kind of competition has been upheld in some courts, but there may be some doubt as to whether it would be generally followed.

Where the injury to the plaintiff is intentional and malicious and it is not done by a competitor, the general rule is that there is no justification and that the plaintiff may recover though there is a minority view to the opposite effect. Thus where an employer used his influence over his employes to prevent them from trading at the store of the plaintiff which was not in any way.competing with the defendant, his sole motive being ill will towards the plaintiff, the court held that was no justification for the resulting damage to the plaintiff and allowed him to recover.

§ 237. Boycotting noncompetitors. - Boycotting noncompetitors is generally held to be illegal. A typical case is where a labor union strikes for higher wages, shorter hours or some similar purpose, and then to make their strike more effectual against the plaintiff they refuse to deal with or work for any of the customers of the plaintiff. The courts have held this boycott to be unjustifiable and have allowed the plaintiff to recover damages. The theory of these cases seems to be that the rival parties are not competitors engaged in securing business or employment from a common third party, but that the defendant is merely trying to coerce unwilling third parties to take sides with it in the controversy with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant are engaged in a bargaining struggle with each other and neither may secure allies by economic coercion. The general benefits of such a struggle are not such as to justify the damages resulting from the boycott.

§ 238. Combinations and conspiracies in competition. Where it is lawful for a single person to injure the business of his competitor and justify his acts through competition, is it lawful for a number of individuals to combine to do the same things? Upon this question there is a conflict among the courts. The question must ultimately depend upon whether combinations of such character are considered desirable to the public welfare. Where the retail lumber dealers combined and refused to buy of any wholesale dealer who sold directly to consumers or lumber brokers of whom the plaintiff was one, and the wholesale dealers therefore refused to sell to the plaintiff, he was allowed to recover damages. The theory of the case seemed to be that while a person could deal effectively with one competitor, it would be unfair and disastrous to competition to allow his competitors to combine. However, there are probably more courts that hold the contrary view.

This question is perhaps raised in its most interesting form where a labor union strikes for a closed shop and succeeds in having all the nonunion laborers discharged. Are the latter entitled to a remedy? Obviously this question depends upon whether labor unions and collective bargaining are considered sufficiently desirable to justify the damage done. Several states, including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Maine hold such strikes illegal as against the nonunion men discharged. Other states including New York, New Jersey, Indiana and Minnesota hold the contrary view.

§ 239. General strikes to secure better terms from employer. Under the early English decisions the rule was that though any one was entitled to quit service when he pleased, yet if two or more agreed that they would quit together such agreement would be a legal

wrong. It was called a criminal conspiracy. Some of the early American cases adopted these decisions as the law. With the progress of society, the rule has been greatly modified and made more liberal in favor of those combining. It is now the law that workmen may as a body agree not to work except on certain conditions, and in pursuance of such agreement may quit service and they will not be guilty of an unlawful act, so long as they confine themselves to peaceable methods. It seems, however, by some late federal decisions, that if the quitting necessarily involves the breach of contract, or if the time of quitting be fixed so as to cause the greatest damage, a combination to that end may be unlawful.

As

The means used must at all events be peaceable. soon as threats, menaces and intimidations enter into the methods of the combination, there is an actionable wrong, and all the participators may be subject to civil as well as criminal liability for conspiracy.

§ 240. The remedy.-Whenever it is shown that one has been damaged by an unlawful interference with his domestic or business relations, he has a civil action against the wrongdoers, and the injuries sustained are recoverable as damages.

The more effective and prompt remedy, however, is by writ of injunction, which will issue where irreparable damage is threatened and the ordinary legal actions do not afford adequate redress.

§ 241. Criminal law in general.-As indicated in a preceding chapter the criminal law is that portion of the law which is concerned primarily with the punishment of wrongs as distinguished from that part of the law devoted to the enforcement of rights. In a civil suit the object of the state is to compel one person to make reparation for any injury his acts or omissions have caused to the rights of another. In such cases the state leaves the injured party to his own initiative as to whether or not he will bring suit against the offending

party. There are certain acts, however, which are of such a nature as to so injure society as a whole as well as damage the private interests of individuals, that the state sees fit to prohibit them by law. When the law is violated, the state, not content to leave the wrongdoer to no other punishment than such as he may suffer at the hands of the injured individuals in a civil suit, prosecutes him for the violation of the law and seeks to punish him for the wrong. The action is brought in the name of the state and by the officers of the state for the purpose of enforcing the penalty prescribed for the particular offense. To punish and thus to prevent those acts which the state has determined to be inimical to the public welfare is the function of the criminal law.

§ 242. Crimes in the United States.-A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of law. The right to punish criminals rests upon gounds of policy, and is absolutely necessary for the preservation of society. Crimes are defined and their punishment regulated by the common law or statute law. There are no common-law crimes which are recognized by the federal courts, their criminal jurisdiction being limited to offenses defined by the laws enacted by congress. In some of the states of the Union there are no offenses punishable as crimes except those which are made so by statutory law.

§ 243. Capacity to commit crime.-An act can not be criminal unless the actor is a responsible being, capable of knowing that the act is wrong and, in some states, having power to control his actions. An idiot or a lunatic, or a young child, is incapable of committing crime. Under seven years of age a child is conclusively presumed to be incapable; between the ages of seven and fourteen it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove

11-Elem. Law.