Rosenberg v. Retail Clerks' Assn.

THE COURT.

Plaintiff herein sought and obtained an injunction against defendants, the Retails Clerks’ Association and others, preventing them from harassing or obstructing him in the operation and conduct of his business. Being dissatisfied with the form and extent of the judgment, plaintiff has appealed therefrom, and he claims that such judgment does not afford him the particular and specific relief prayed for" by him in his complaint, and that it is not as favorable to Mm as the findings of the court warrant.

The record consists of the judgment-roll alone. The complaint charges that the defendants, in pursuance of a confederation and combination among themselves, attempted to injure and ruin plaintiff’s business by placing and maintaining immediately in front of his store, pickets wearing badges, who accost and call out to possible patrons and persons passing by “This is an unfair house; it is unfair to organized labor. Don’t patronize it.” It is further alleged that by the presence of said pickets and the statements made by them, many of plaintiff’s patrons have been intimidated, and in consequence thereof have ceased to-and have refrained from patronizing him, and that they will continue so to do as long as such pickets are maintained in the immediate vicinity of plaintiff’s store, to Ms irreparable damage, the defendants being financially irresponsible. The prayer of the complaint asks that defendants be restrained and enjoined from further commission of the acts complained of.

[69]

The answer consists of general denials. After trial the court announced “that permanent injunction issue in the form of the modified order made as reported in Goldberg, Bowen case, 149 Cal. Rep., at page 435. ’ ’

Thereafter findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment were presented by plaintiff and adopted by the court, with the single exception of a finding to the effect that the conduct complained of intimidated customers and constituted a threat or menace. The judgment as given restrained de-H fendants from interfering with, harassing, or obstructing plaintiff in the conduct of his business by means of threats, menaces, or intimidation through pickets in or about plain-" tiff’s place of business.

It is the claim of plaintiff that the judgment as given means nothing and is without force, for the reason that the acts complained of are not found by the court to constitute either a threat, menace, or intimidation, and that he is entitled to a judgment upon the issue that patrons were intimidated by the admitted utterances of the pickets, and on account of such intimidation refrained from patronizing him. It is for this reason that the claim is made that the judgment is not supported by the findings and should be set aside.