other occasions thereafter attended outside the
said business places of the plaintiffs or in the
vicinity thereof and gave encouragement to the
said pickets.

8. The defendant Levi Joseph and the
pickets have by threats and acts of violence
and intimidation and coercion prevented divers
customers and prospective purchasers from
entering the said business places and pur-
chasing therein. :

PARTICULARS.

(1) On the 17th day of September, 1943,
the defendant Levi Joseph led a steel
band and a number of pickets carrying
placards:to the said business places of the
plaintiffs and surrounded same blocking
the approaches and entrances thereto and
shouting in a threatening manner to per-
sons who attempted to enter the said
business places ‘* Don’t buy from O’Neal’s
Drug Store, A strike is on.”

(2) On the said 17th day of September,
1955, and on several days thereafter the
defendant Joseph Samuel who is well
known to the general public as a local
constable paraded up and down outside
the said business places ringing a bell
and shouting “ Dont buy froin O’Neal’s
Drug Store people. You no hear you
no foo buy from this Drug Store.” And
when people asked why not ? defendant
Samuel told them that the police will
lock them up.

(3) The said defendant Joseph Samuel on
the 19th day of September, 1955,
assaulted a person whose name is un-
known who was attempting to enter one
of the business places for the purpose of
purchasing therein,

(4) The said pickets carrying flags and pla-

- cards with slogans such as ‘‘ Hold the
line the workers security is challenged ”
written thereon attend daily around the
said business places and in a menacing and
threatening manner surround and obstruct
persons especially old men women and
children who attempt to enter the said
business places shouting at them ‘ Hold
the Line.”

(5) The defendant Levi Joseph on the
morning of the 24th September, 1955,
and other pickets conducted themselves
in a boisterous and disorderly manner
marching up and down in front of the
said business places shouting ‘“ Hold the
line” —“ Dont buy from this Drug
Store, Workers must be respected.”

9. In the alternative the defendants and
each of them wrongfully and maliciously cons-
pired with intent to injure the plaintiffs to
create a nuisance and did in pursuance of

their conspiracy create a nuisance by the con-
tinuous shouts and other noises of the pickets
and by obstructing the approaches to the said
business places of the plaintiffs thereby
seriously interfering with the comfort of the
plaintiffs and the ordinary enjoyment of the
said premises by them.

10. By reason of the premises the
plaintiffs have suffered damage—Loss_ esti-
mated at $500.00 up to this date has thereby
been incurred.

The plaintiffs claim against the defendants
and each of them:

(1) Damages

(2) An injunction restraining the defendants
their servants and agents from unlaw-
fully watching and besetting the business
places of the plaintiffs.”

The Defence filed denies any tortious acts on
the part of any of the defendants and continues as
follows:—

6b
Dina sis ab ateemtetetieleciela’s eis gene ibinesleses oe ewe ese casas
Tee errr rrr rere errr rrr rere ere errr eee ccceresccce

If any of the defendants or any other
person did any of the acts complained of in
the Statement of Claim and_ particularly in
paragraphs 5 to 9 inclusive thereof in pursu-
ance of any conspiracy or unlawful purpose or
in any unlawful manner as alleged (which the
plaintiffs do not admit) or at all then each
and every defendant for himself denies that
such acts if any were done with his knowledge
or consent or that he authorised in any way
or connived at the same.

9. A Trade Dispute has since the 11th
day of June, 1955, existed between the
Antigua Trades and Labour Union mentioned
in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim, and
the plaintiffs. In furtherance and in respect
of the said dispute the premises of the plain-
tiffs have been picketed. Such picketing has
been at all times carried out in a lawful and
peaceful manner. None of the said pickets or
other persons mentioned in paragraphs 6 to 9
inclusive of the Statement of Claim are the
servants or agents of the defendants or any of
them. If any of the pickets or persons so
mentioned acted in any of the unlawful man-
ners alleged (which is not admitted) the
defendants deny that they or any of them
authorised or connived at or consented to or
permitted such acts to be done.”

At the trial of this action Mr. E. E. Harney,
for the plaintiffs, repeated his submission made to
the Board of Inquiry as to the non-existence of any
trade dispute within the legal meaning of that
term. Both in our Trade Unions Act, 1939, and
Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Inquiry) Act,
1939, ‘trade dispute”’ is defined thus:—