Pending a new edition of TRADE UNION LAW AND 4ddenda. CASES, the following brief remarks are offered by way of Addenda :

I.

In the Taff Vale Case (see page 82) the House of Lords (Halsbury, L.C., and Lords Macnaghten, Shand, Brampton, and Lindley), in July, 1901, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgment of Farwell, J., (70 L. J. K. B. 908; 17 T. L. R. 698). Accordingly, it is now settled that a Trade Union may be sued in its registered name. (See pp. 70 and 100.)

For another and earlier instance of judgment, injunction, damages and, presumably, costs against an union as such, see pp. 80-2, and add Pink v. Federation of Trade Unions, &c. (67 L. T. 258) in 1892, where costs were expressly given. In the Taff Vale Case the point whether an union as such could be sued, was thoroughly argued for the first time. Moreover, it was held that an union may be sued in another way than by its registered name. (Thus, “a trade union can be sued either in its registered name or by its proper officers," head-note, 17 T. L. R. 698.)

I have myself," said Lord Lindley, no doubt whatever that, if the trade union could not be sued in this case in its registered name, some of its members—namely, its executive committee-could be sued on behalf of themselves and other members of the society, and an injunction and judgment for damages could be obtained in a proper case in an action so framed. Further it is, in my opinion, equally plain, that if the trustees in whom the property of the society is legally vested were added as parties, an order could be made in the same action for the payment by them out of the funds of the society of all damages and costs for which the plaintiff might obtain judgment against the trade union." (See to the same effect Lord Macnaghten's judgment at p. 911.)

Lord Lindley enforced his argument by pointing out, per

Addenda, contra, that there is nothing to prevent an union, as such, bringing an action in its own name against its trustees.

He added that to reach the property of a trade union "it may be found necessary to sue the trustees."

In view of misconceptions, it may be pointed out that, by this decision, unions have not lost any rights which they previously possessed. They are in the same position as other employers. If the illegal acts committed by agents or servants are "within the scope of their authority," the employers are liable, but not otherwise. When anything illegal has been done by their agents or servants, unions should disavow it at the earliest possible moment. It would be well, too, that their rules should make it clear that the illegal acts of subordinates will be repudiated. In this case the picketing authorised by the union was held to be illegal. (See p. 127 and foll.)

II.

Quinn v. Leathem* (1899), 2 Ir. R. 667 (as Leathem v. Craig); 17 T. L. R. 749; 70 L. J. P. C. 76.

A.

The headnote of the last report mentioned is (in part): "The appellant, an officer of a trade union, in combination with other members of the union-first, induced a servant of the respondent to break his contract with the respondent; secondly, induced a customer of the respondent, by threats of calling out the customer's men, to withdraw his custom; and thirdly, induced the respondent's servants to leave his service.-Held, that the appellant had been guilty of an actionable conspiracy, for which he was liable in damages, that as there was no trade dispute' within the meaning of the Conspiracy, &c., Act, 1875, s. 3 [see p. 123], the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the section."

It is easy to distinguish this (Irish) case from Allen v. Flood (see Table of Cases in the text, where it is fully discussed).

* Before Halsbury, C., Lord Macnaghten, Lord Shand, Lord Brampton, Lord Robertson, and Lord Lindley.

In the latter the defendant did not utter any threat: in the Addenda. Irish case, the defendants threatened and carried their

threats into effect.

The English union passed no resolution: the Irish union did. The English union official was not authorised to call men out the Irish official had such authority and used it.

In the English case what the defendants did was to further the objects of the union as set forth in the registered rules in the Irish case there was no rule not to work with non-union men, but the defendants agreed on such a rule among themselves.

In Allen v. Flood there was an actual dispute between masters and men when the union official was called in : in Quinn v. Leathem the union officials came in and created the dispute.

In Allen's case, no conspiracy, intimidation, coercion, or breach of contract was proved in the Irish case, all these were held to be proved.

Perhaps the comparison between the two cases may be summed up thus:-If the Irish union had confined its dealings to its own members as the English one had done (for Allen took no step with regard to any non-member except to give information to a manager), they would have been within their rights, even in attempting to apply to them such coercion as their organisation permitted.

One distinction is constantly insisted upon throughout the various judgments.

"As to the vital distinction between Allen v. Flood and the present case, it may be stated in a single sentence. In Allen v. Flood the purpose of the defendant was by the acts complained of to promote his own trade interest, which it was held he was entitled to do, although injurious to his competitors; whereas, in the present case, while it is clear there was combination, the purpose of the defendants was 'to injure the plaintiff in his trade as distinguished from the intention of legitimately advancing their own interests.” (Per Lord Shand.)