Odger's English Common Law

632 CIVIL CONSPIRACIES.
an action for the conspiracy cannot be maintained ;
but that,
if the object of the conspiracy is unlawful, it is immaterial
whether the overt acts, by which it is carried into effect, are
unlawful or not. But he differed from the view expressed
by Darling, J., in Huttley v. Simmons that overt acts done in
pursuance of a combination of persons are not unlawful
whenever they would not have been so if done by one
individual without any preconcert. "Much consideration of
the matter has led me to be convinced that a number of
actions and things not in themselves actionable or unlawful
if done separately without conspiracy may, with conspiracy,
become dangerous and alarming." l
But this point of law, though theoretically interesting, is
no longer of so much practical importance, for it, generally
arises in connection with a trade dispute, and by the Trade
Disputes Act, 1906, 2 it is enacted that :
" An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by two or
more persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade
dispute, not be actionable unless the act, if done without any such agreement
or combination, would be actionable." 8
" It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf
or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in
contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a
house or place where a person resides or works or games on business or
happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully
obtaining or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any
person to work or abstain from working." i
" An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade
dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it induces some
other person to break a contract of employment or that it is an interference
with the trade, business or employment of some other person, or with the
right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as
he wills." s
" An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or
1 Per Lord Brampton in Quinn v. Leathern, [1901] A. C. at p. 630 ; and see
the remarks of Bomer, L. J., in Giblan v. National Labourer!;' Union, 119031J 2 K. B.
at p. 619.
2 6 Edw. VII. c. 47.
8 S. 1.
4 S. 2, sub-s. (1 ). Prior to the passing of this Act it was held that to watch or beset
a man's home without reasonable justification, with a view to compel him to do or
not to do that which it was lawful for him not to do or to do, was a wrongful act, a
nuisance at common law; for such conduct seriously interferes with the ordinary
comfort of human existence and the ordinary enjoyment of the house beset. Peaceable
persuasion was only permitted where the method employed was no nuisance : Lyons v.
WUhins. [1899] 1 Ch. 255. And see McCusker v. Smith, ri9181 2 Ir. E. 432.
• L J
5 S. 3.
—
.