and sentencing each of them to imprisonment in the county jail for four months.

The following statement of the case is made by the Appellate Court for the First District, and upon examination and comparison we find the statement full and accurate, and accordingly adopt it as a correct statement in this case:

"M. Born & Co., a corporation, organized under the laws of Illinois, filed its bill in the superior court for an injunction against the United Garment Workers of America, the Chicago Coat Seam Pressers, Local Union 150 of the United Garment Workers of America, the Brotherhood of Custom Cutters and Trimmers to the Trade, Local Union No. 21 of the United Garment Workers of America, District Council No. 6 of the United Garment Workers of America, Local Union No. 194 of the United Garment Workers of America, and other local unions of the United Garment Workers of America, and divers individuals, officers of said unions, and averred that the complainant was engaged at 337 Franklin street, Chicago, Illinois, in the manufacture of coats and vests and employed a great number of men and women; that before the filing of the bill it had employed in its business organized labor affiliated with the United Garment Workers of America and its several affiliated local unions; that on November 18, A. D. 1904, the said union inaugurated a strike against complainant for the purpose of dominating and controlling the employment of skilled coat and pants workers, bushelmen, pressers and trimmers in the city of Chicago, and for the purpose of prohibiting other workmen and workwomen, and those affiliated with the said union or unions, from working at their trade in the city of Chicago; that prior to November 18 the complainant's employees were members of the different unions; that thereafter they left complainant's place of business and gathered around said place of business for the purpose of intimidating the complainant's employees who remained at work; that as said persons went to and from their work

they were stopped and interfered with by said defendants, who had instituted a system of picketing; that the defendants named in the bill, and others who are unknown to the complainant, continued to surround complainant's place of business and are still maintaining said picket line, by reason whereof complainant's employees have refused to continue to work; that some of complainant's employees are willing to continue to work but are afraid to do so, by reason of which complainant is prevented from carrying on its business; that complainant has requested its employees to continue to work; that said employees have tried to do so, but were intercepted by said pickets and compelled by threats and intimidation to desist therefrom; that the defendants named in the bill have combined and conspired for the purpose of inflicting injury upon the business of the complainant; that in furtherance of the said purpose the defendants caused a system of picketing to be maintained and established around complainant's plant since the commencement of the said strike, and have intercepted persons who remained in complainant's service, persons going to and from complainant's factory for the purpose of obtaining employment, and that the employees of complainant have been assaulted either by said defendants or persons in combination with them, and that personal injuries have been inflicted upon some of the employees of the complainant; that the effect of said picketing and assault has been to terrify the employees of complainant and make them afraid, and by reason thereof persons have been unwilling to enter the service of complainant, and complainant has been deprived of the services of a large number of persons who would otherwise have taken employment from it; that if said picketing and assaults are continued irreparable loss and damage to complainant's business will result; that the picketing system has been and is under the direction and instigation. and advice of the United Garment Workers of America and its officers, for the purpose of injuring complainant's busi

ness and terrifying its employees and coercing complainant to make a settlement with them whereby a renewal of a closed shop agreement in the wholesale tailoring industry should be executed by the complainant; that persons associated with the defendants are surrounding complainant's place of business and are engaged in altercations with complainant's employees as they pass in and out of its place of business; that these employees are called vile names, such as 'scabs,' and opprobrious epithets, and that threats are being used against them; that said defendants' associates are intimidating and terrifying complainant's employees in numerous ways, by reason of which many of said employees are about to leave complainant's employment and will do so if the said system of picketing is continued; that in the course of its business complainant had, prior to the filing of this bill, entered into numerous contracts with divers persons in Chicago and throughout the United States to manufacture and sell clothing, and that in many of said contracts time is the essence of the contract; that the contracts are very valuable, the exact value complainant is unable to determine; that it will be obliged to use every possible facility to complete its contracts within time; that various orders will be canceled and will result in losses of patrons and profits to complainant, and complainant will be unable to complete contracts and carry on its business unless the defendants are restrained from interfering with its said business in the manner aforesaid, and complainant will sustain irreparable loss and injury; that complainant's business requires skilled mechanics, and that if those are prevented from working by defendants and the co-conspirators, the complainant's business will be crippled and perhaps destroyed and great loss will come to the complainant; that said loss will arise from the cost of protecting contracts partially finished, in loss of trade and profits, damages for unperformed contracts and loss of patrons; that said loss cannot be estimated in money; that there are many ele

ments of loss which will occur which cannot be determined or fixed in money value; that the continuance of said conditions will destroy complainant's good will in the business which complainant has built up through many years of toil; that the conspiracy of the defendants, with others unknown to the complainant, has prevented complainant from carrying on its business, and if continued the complainant will be required to cease doing business; that during the past few years numerous strikes have occurred in various manufacturing industries in Chicago, and that it is common report and knowledge that numerous deadly assaults have been committed by strikers; that the effect of all this is to cause fear amongst mechanics and employees of complainant; that mechanics now engaged by complainant were employed with knowledge of and continued in the employment of complainant with knowledge of said strike; that they are working in opposition to the wishes of the officers and members of the defendant union; that said persons desire to continue in the employ of complainant without interference of the defendants and their associates; that the pickets single out and identify said employees and ascertain their home and address and the routes they travel to and from their labor, in order to waylay and assault said employees of complainant; that they fear they will be identified, pointed out and waylaid by the defendants; that some of the former employees are not actively engaged in the strike, but waiting for the strike to be settled that they may return to work; that said employees would not have quitted complainant's employment had they not been fearful of being assaulted and waylaid and beaten, as the result of such picketing; that others who have desired to enter complainant's employment have been deterred by reason of said system of picketing, and so complainant's employees are intimidated and coerced to leave complainant's business and employment; that such loss and injury to complainant's business, resulting from the proceedings of the defendants, are without remedy except

in equity. The bill prays for an injunction restraining defendants from in any unlawful manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing or stopping any of the business of complainant or its agents, in the city of Chicago or elsewhere, and also from entering upon the grounds or places where the employees of complainant are at work for such unlawful interference, and from unlawfully inducing, by threats, force or violence, any employees of complainant to refuse or fail to do their work or to leave the service of complainant, and from preventing any person from entering the employment of complainant, etc. The bill is supported by the affidavit of William A. Kirchberger, secretary and treasurer of the complainant.

"On March 18, 1905, the complainant, M. Born & Co., filed a petition in the cause setting up the filing of the bill of complaint; that an injunction was issued; that after the filing of the bill and issuing of the injunction the injunction was personally served upon Robert Noren, S. J. Stern, Mrs. Anna Sorenson, and upon the officers and business agents of Local Union No. 21, and upon other business agents and officers of other local unions; that printed copies of said injunction, in large type, were immediately placed and posted in conspicuous places, and upon the buildings and entrances to the different branches of the establishment of complainant, and at the entrance-ways to the meeting places of the different local unions, some of whose members are engaged in the strike; that from the issuance of said injunction until the 27th day of February, 1905, upon which date the said injunction was modified, there was little picketing and little or no violence or other unlawful interference with the business of the petitioner or with its employees then at work; that since the modification of the injunction picketing has been going on; that members of the local union patrol the streets near the places of business of petitioner; that the officers and agents, particularly Robert Noren, of the general executive board of defendant union,