the same in any car, or vessel of any description, for a longer period than twenty-eight hours without unlading the same for rest, water and feeding, for a period of at least five consecutive hours, unless prevented from so unlading and furnishing water and food, by storm or other unavoidable cause, or by necessary delay or detention in the crossing of trains. 2. In reckoning the period of confinement, the time during which the cattle have been confined without such rest, and without the furnishing of food and water, on any connecting railway or vessels from which they are received, whether in the United States or in Canada, shall be included. 3. The foregoing provisions as to cattle being unladen shall not apply when cattle are carried in any car or vessel in which they have proper space and opportunity for rest, and proper food and water. 4. Cattle so unloaded shall be properly fed and watered during such rest by the owner or person having the custody thereof or, in case of his default in so doing, by the railway company, or owner or master of the vessel transporting the same, at the expense of the owner or person in custody thereof; and such company, owner or master shall in such case have a lien upon such cattle, for food, care and custody, furnished, and shall not be liable for any detention of such cattle. 5. Where cattle are unladen from cars for the purpose of receiving food, water and rest, the railway company, then having charge of the cars in which they have been transported, shall, except during a period of frost, clear the floors of such cars, and litter the same properly with clean зawdust or sand, before reloading them with live stock. 6. Every railway company, or owner, or master of a vessel, having cattle in transit, or the owner or person having the custody of such cattle, as aforesaid, who knowingly and wilfully fails to comply with the foregoing provisions of this section, is liable for every such failure on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars. R.S.C., c. 172, ss. 8, 9, 10 and 11. 515. Any peace officer or constable may, at all times, enter any premises where he has reasonable ground for supposing that any car, truck or vehicle, in respect whereof any company or person has failed to comply with the provisions of the next preceeding section, is to be found, or enter on board any vessel in respect whereof he has reasonable ground for supposing that any company or person has, on any occasion, so failed. 2. Every one who refuses admission to such peace officer or constable is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars and not less than five dollars, and costs, and in default of payment, to thirty days' imprisonment. R.S.C., c. 171, s. 12. PART XXXIX OFFENCES CONNECTED WITH TRADE, AND BREACHES OF CONTRACT. 516. Conspiracy in restraint of trade.-A conspiracy in restraint of trade is an agreement between two or more persons to do or procure to be done any unlawful act in restraint of trade. See general comments on conspiracy, under Article 394 ante, p 335. See also Article 527, post. 517. What acts in restraint of trade are not unlawful.—The purposes of a trade union are not, by reason merely that they are in restraint of trade, unlawful, within the meaning of the next preceding section. R.S.C.. c. 131, s. 22. The expression "Trade Union" means such combination, whether temporary or permanent, for regulating the relations between workmen and masters, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, as would, but for this Act, have been deemed to be an unlawful combination by reason of some one or more of its purposes being in restraint of trade. (Sec. 2 of The Trade Unions Act," R.S C., c. 131.) The law of England in regard to combinations of workmen organized for the purpose of raising wages, shortening the hours of labor, dictating to masters what workmen they shall employ and so forth, was formerly regulated by the common law relating to conspiracy, by various statutes, (including the 6 Geo. 4. c. 129, the 22 Vict. c. 34, and the 24 and 25 Vict. c. 100, sec. 41), and by the judicial decisions which were rendered from time to time in a number of cases which arose upon the subject. (1) Complaints on the part of the working classes that the law as it stood prevented them from entering into reasonable combinations, for the purpose of employing their time and skill to the best advantage, led to a change, by the passing of chapter 31 of 34 and 35 Vict.; sec 2 of which declared that the purposes of any trade union should not be deemed unlawful by being merely in restraint of trade; and by the passing of chapter 32 of 34 and 35 Vict.; sec. 7 of which repealed the old statutes. The 34 and 35 Vict., chap. 32, however, specified, as unlawful, certain special acts which often occur in the course of disputes between masters and workmen, and affixed to them appropriate punishments. Although, after the passing of the 34 and 35 Vict., c. 32, no indictment would lie for conspiracy to do any act on the mere ground of its being in restraint of the free course of trade, unless it was one of the special acts mentioned in the statute itself, as punishable, it was held nevertheless that an agreement or combination to force, - by improper threats or improper molestation, a master to conduct his business contrary to his own will, was still an indictable conspiracy; and, further, that there was an improper molestation whenever anything was done with an improper intent, and whenever it was something that would have the effect of annoying or interfering with the minds of ordinary persons carrying on such business as the master carried on. an agreement, by improper molestation, to control the master was a conspiracy at common law, and it was held that such an offence was not abrogated by the Such (1; For a list of these cases, see Arch Cr. Pl. and Ev. 21 Ed. 1014 34 and 35 Vict., c. 32. (1) It was also held that a combination between workmen or servants to hinder or prevent their master from carrying on his business, by means of the workmen or servants simultaneously breaking unexpired contracts of service, into which they had entered with the master, was also an indictable conspiracy, notwithstanding the 34 and 35 Vict., c. 32. (2) The decision in the case of R v Bunn led to the repeal of the 34 & 35 Vict c. 32, and to the enactment of the 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, which, by section 3, declares that" an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen shall not be indictable as a conspiracy if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime." Under our own law, as contained in Article 518, there can be no prosecution for conspiracy in respect of any act done for the purpose of a trade combination, unless the act itself is a punishable offence by statute. See Articles 523, 524, 525, 526, as to punishable acts of intimidation. 518. Prosecution for conspiracy.-No prosecution shall be maintainable against any person for conspiracy in refusing to work with or for any employer or workman, or for doing any act or causing any act to be done for the purpose of a trade combination, unless such act is an offence punishable by statute. 53 V., c. 37, s. 19. Where the defendants, who were members of a trade union, conspired together to injure a non-unionist workman, by depriving him of his employment, it was held to be a misdemeanor, and not for the purposes of their trade combination, within the meaning of the law. (3) 519. Meaning of expressions, “trade combination,” and “act.” -The expression "trade combination means any combination between masters or workmen or other persons for regulating or altering the relations between any persons being masters or workmen, or the conduct of any master or workman in or in respect of his business or employment, or contract of employment or service; and the expression" act" includes a default, breach or omission. R.S.C., c. 173, s. 13. 520. Combinations in restraint of trade.-Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars and not less than two hundred dollars, or to two years' imprisonment, and if a corporation is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars and not less than one thousand dollars, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other person, or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company, unlawfully (a.) to unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce; or (b.) to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity; or (1) R. v. Bunn, 12 Cox, 316, 339, 340, per Brett, J., (dissented from in Gibson v Lawson, [1891]. 2 Q. B. 545). (2) R. v. Bunn, Id. (3) R. v. Gibson, 16 O. R. 704. (c.) to unduly prevent, limit, or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof; or (d) to unduly prevent or lessen competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity, or in the price of insurance upon person or property. 52 V., c. 41, s. 1. The defendants, (who were shipowners), agreed that, if persons in a certain trade would deal with them, exclusively, such persons should have certain advantages at their hands, and that if they dealt with any other shipowner, to however small an extent, they should lose all the advantages which they would derive from dealing with defendants. The plaintiffs, who were also shipowners), alleged that this was done for the purpose of injuring them by driving them out of the trade. But the defendants said it was done for the protection of their own trade. Held, that the question would be which of these two views was, in fact, true (1) The above Article, 520, is a re-enactment of section 1 of 52 Viet c. 41; and sections 4 and 5 of the same statute, which are unrepealed, (as will be seen by Schedule Two, post), are as follows: "Where an indictment is found against any person for offences provided against in this Act, the defendant or person accused shall have the option to be tried before the judge presiding at the court at which such indictment is found, or the judge presiding at any subsequent sitting of such court, or at any court where the indictment comes on for trial, without the intervention of a jury; and in the event of such option being exercised the proceedings subsequent thereto shall be regulated in so far as may be applicable by The Speedy Trials Act." (Sec. 4.). (2) 66 "An appeal shall lie from any conviction under this Act by the judge without the intervention of a jury to the highest court of appeal in criminal matters, in the province where such conviction shall have been made, upon all issues of law and fact; and the evidence taken in the trial shall form part of the record in appeal, and for that purpose the court, before which the case is tried, shall take note of the evidence and of all legal objections thereto." (Sec. 5.) It is the policy of the law to encourage trade and commerce; and it is against public policy and illegal to enter into a combination or agreement for the purpose of restraining trade,or tending to take it out of the realms of competition; even although it may not appear that the combination or agreement has actually produced any result detrimental to public interests. (3) Where the proprietors of five several lines of boats, engaged in the business of transporting persons and freight on the Erie and Oswego canals, entered into an agreement among themselves, fixing the rates of freight and passage upon their boats, and to divide the net earnings, among themselves, according to certain proportions fixed in the agreement, it was held to be a combination, tend (1) Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, L. R. 15 Q. B. D. 476. (2) For the provisions of the present Code relating to speedy trials, see Articles 762-781, post. (3) Santa Clara V. M. & L. Co. v. Hayes, 76 Cal. 387; Atcheson v. Mallow, 43 N. Y. 147. ing to destroy competition between the several lines engaged in the business, and unlawful. (1) An association of Manufacturers of wire cloth, formed for the avowed purpose of regulating the price of the commodity, each of the members stipulating, under a heavy penalty, that he would not sell at less than a specified rate, was held to be contrary to public policy, and illegal. (2) The retail coal dealers of the City of Lockport formed an association called the Lockport Coal Exchange, the main purpose of which was to fix a minimum retail price of coal for the city and vicinity, with the design practically to compel, under prescribed penalties, every coal dealer in the city to join it and regulate his business by its constitution and by-laws, which prohibited soliciting business except as provided therein, and the taking of club orders of associated buyers at reduced prices, and provided for keeping the retail price of coal uniform, so far as practicable, and required a certain vote of the association to change the price. The constitution also provided that no price was to be made amounting to more than a fair and reasonable advance over wholesale rates, or more than the current prices of the coal exchanges at certain designated neighboring cities, when figured upon corresponding freight tariffs; and the retail price of coal actually fixed by the association was a fair price. Held, on an appeal to the N. Y. Supr. Ct, that as the purpose and object of the association had a tendency to practically prevent competition in one of the necessaries of life, it constituted a combination in restraint of trade, and that membership in such association would support a conviction on an indictment for conspiracy to commit acts injurious to trade (3) 521. Criminal breaches of contract.-Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on indictment or on summary conviction before two justices of the peace, to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars or to three months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, who— (a.) wilfully breaks any contract made by him knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to endanger human life, or to cause serious bodily injury, or to expose valuable property, whether real or personal, to destruction or serious injury; ΟΙ (b.) being, under any contract made by him with any municipal corporation or authority, or with any company, bound, agreeing or assuming to supply any city or any other place, or any part thereof, with electric light or power, gas or water, wilfully breaks such contract knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to deprive the inhabitants of that city or place, or part thereof, wholly or to a great extent, of their supply of power, light, gas or water; or (c.) being under any contract made by him with a railway company, bound, agreeing or assuming to carry Her Majesty's mails, or to carry passengers or freight, or with Her Majesty, or any one on (1) Hooker v Vandewater, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 349 (2) De Witt Wire Cloth Co. v. New Jersey Wire Cloth Co., 14 N. Y. Supp. Rep. 277. (3) People v. Sheldon and others, S. C., 47 Alb. L J. 185; 15 Cr. L. Mag. [1893], 412. |