1;

eaceful manner; no decision has been taken as
to the duration of the picketing.

In his evidence the defendant Hurst says
he instructed the pickets in accordance with the
directions of the Executive Committee and
frequently visited them to ensure that those
instructions were being carried out; he denies
having ever directed the pickets to tell people
not to buy from O’Neal’s Drug Store.

The defendant Lake states that he also
checked up on the pickets; on two occasions he
went there specifically for that purpose; he
passed by the pickets daily on other business.
Neither he nor Hurst ever witnessed any
misbehaviour. :

As regards the article appearing in “ The
Workers’ Voice” of 18th September, 1955, both
Mr. Hurst and Mr. Lake disclaim responsibility
for its composition; they do not agree it was
intended to insinuate that damage would or
should be done to O’Neal’s trade; they under-
stand the words * broken off trade relationship ”
in the headlines of the article to mean that
“there is a trade dispute and relationship is
broken off.’ The defendant Richards, who, as
already mentioned, is the editor of the
newspaper, did not testify.

I have already made reference to certain
portions of the evidence of the defendant Levi
Joseph. He denies all the charges levelled
against him, as well as having ever given
instructions to any of the pickets as to how
they were to carry out their duties; that, he
points out, was done by the General Secretary;
he maintains that he himself acted as a picket
only on one occasion—24th September—and then
for a few minutes only, in the absence of one of
the regular pickets; he declares that he never
encouraged the pickets to shout loudly and that
he visited them daily and never saw any mis-
behaviour; that 3rd October, at the hearing of
the motion for an interim injunction in this
matter, was the first time he heard it said that
the object of the picketing was to vause people
to stop buying from O’Neal’s, and he
subsequently told the pickets and several other
people that that was not the intention, but he
did not mention it on his loud speaker.

Neither the defendant Samuel—who was
described by some of the plaintiffs’ witnesses as
the head picket, and against whom specific
charges of a serious nature were made—nor any
of the other pickets, was called by the defence.
The case for the plaintiffs is not that the
defendants or any of them were heard planning
to injure the plaintiffs, or anything of the sort;
the plaintiffs seek to prove the conspiracy
through overt acts alleged to have been com-
mitted by defendants and persons employed by
the defendants. Included in the defence is
a complete denial of most of these acts. It
would seem, therefore, that the persons said to
have committed the acts should be in a position

to furnish valuable testimony. Altogether, this
case is remarkable for the number of persons
not called as witnesses. In this connexion,
however, as also in considering other aspects of
the case, it must be borne in mind that the onus
of proof rests upon the plaintiffs. One of the
main lines of attack employed by learned
counsel for the defence was the failure of the
plaintiffs to call the majority of the persons
said to have been interfered with, or the
policemen on duty in the streets. It is common
ground that throughout the picketing there
have always been at least two policemen stationed
in the vicinity of the plaintiffs’ premises. One
explanation suggested by the plaintiff Gertrude
O’Neal is that very many people in Antigua
are afraid of the Union, Another explanation
advanced, in so far as the first group is concerned,
is that the names and addresses of some of the
persons molested are unknown. As regards the
police, it was apparent from the female plaintiff's
gestures when replying to certain questions put
to her in the witness box that she felt that the
police attitude towards the plaintiffs in this
matter was unfavourable; and she expressed
surprise that no arrests were made on 17th
or 24th September. Assistant Superintendent
Blaize testified that on 17th September, the
first day of the picketing, the Commissioner of
Police sent a message through him to the
defendant Bird complimenting the pickets “for
the manner in which the picketing was carried
on.” Exactly what that was intended to convey,
on what evidence the opinion was based, or
whether the transmission of the message became
known to the plaintiffs and in any way influenced
their assessment of the police attitude. is
not clear.

Another argument urged by Mr. Barrow
was that the witnesses called by the plaintiffs
are biased against the Union. Victoria l’rederick
once worked at the Co-operative Store run by
the Union and was dismissed; she admits that
she considered the action of the Mxecutive
Committee of the Union in dismissing her
“very unfair.” Iris Barrow is a ‘ good”
personal friend of the Misses O’Neal; some years
ago Joseph Dew & Son’s, whore she works, was
picketed; the dispute in that instance was over
the dismissal of a clerk by her brother. Clement
Nelson was at one time Chairman of the Munici-
pal Workers Section of the Union; he was
removed from office with the promise, he says,
that he would be promoted to the post of District
Steward but declined the promotion as he
“saw tricks in it’; he owns to being opposed
to the policy of the officials of the Union and
says he will do all in his power to destroy that
policy. Cardigan Stevens is another personal
friend of the O’Neal family; on one occasion,
during an altercation unconnected with this case,
he told the defendant Ireland that he considered.
the Union was doing things that were wrong;
he further states that on » certain day, after the
Dominican picket had made threats of personal
violence to Linda O’Neal because she softly