BOYCOTTING AND CONSPIRACY.

Waikato Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 3486, 1 November 1894, Page 7

BOYCOTTING AND CONSPIRACY.

The Sydney Mail says:—A useful leasdn has been read in the Supreme' Court' 1 of Victoriaon the question of boycotting, The plaintiff in .the case is a licensed grocer, at Prahran, and the defendants are the executive committee of the Suburban Licensed Grocers 5 Association-an institution established- for the purpose of 4 keeping up the retail prices of liquors sold by grocers.,. .Theassociation had an agreement, with, the Brewers' Club, to which most of the brewers doing business in Melbourne belongs that the club should, not, supply beer to grocers who sold it retail below a fixed price, and the association undertook to furnish the club ; with lists of thegrbcers who did and of those who .did not' sellf'at.jower prices. The plaintiff declined, to'join the association, and rediiced- his prices, below the prescribed, leviel.-The■■ association• then caused his name to be placed on the- list pfihosewhowere not to be supplied, and he was boycotted for the greater part of a y>ar. There was then a partial reconciliation, but afterwards the prohibition was revived. The Chief Justice'said that if the defendants had not dorieanyW •■ thing more than was expressed in /their original agreement with the brewers they would have been, within their legal i rights, but when they endeavoured to compel the plaintiff to conform! to ;their ; views they acted illegally; and laid them* selves open to both civil and criminal liability, '■ A verdict was returned for the plaintiff. If we Tightly' effect of the remarks of the Chief justice in the report before us, they amount to a repudiation of the broad doctrine thafc'a number of people joining together to do an act which one man could legally perform by himself do not commit the crime of conspiracy. This principle is embodied in one of the later; English laws; but it is founded upon; alpartial view of the matter.. Many things which one man could lawfully do apart become unlawful when done by a number of persons acting in concert and for the purpose; of interfering with the rights aud liberties of others. The character of the proceeding as a whole-does not depend upon the character of the act in itself, but must be judged in the light of the probable effe*fc and its purpose. Any brewer in Melbourne had a right to decline to sell bottled beer to the plaintiff in this case, and the defendants would not. have been breaking the law in askingany ibrewer to do so. But when a systematic arrangement was made with all, or nearly all, the breweis

to step the roppliw to any grocer at their bring *bout a_6tojgage of euppltefl to this hw independent and lawful action, then iilhfl)()ririiaotioa«i«umWia <tiffetst)«bm-,